Linking the Gaza Strip with the West Bank: Implications of a Palestinian Corridor Across Israel Justus Reid Weiner and Diane Morrison

Home , Erez Crossing, Port of Eilat, Route 471 (Israel), Steve Centanni, Zvi Mazel

Lebanon

Syria

Haifa

Mediterranian Sea

Tel-Aviv-YafoTel-Aviv-Yafo

JerusalemJerusalem

WestWest BBankank (Judea(Judea & SSamaria)amaria) za a GazaG I s r a e l

Egypt Jordan

Eilat

Linking the Gaza Strip with the West Bank: Implications of a Palestinian Corridor Across Israel Justus Reid Weiner and Diane Morrison

The Jerusalem Center for Public Aﬀairs ®¯¢Ú© ‰È„ÓÂ ¯Â·Èˆ ÈÈÈÚÏ ÈÓÏ˘Â¯È‰ ÊÎ¯Ó‰ Institute for Contemporary Aﬀairs Founded jointly with the Wechsler Family Foundation © 2007 Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs 13 Tel Hai Street, Jerusalem, Israel 92107 Tel. 972-2-561-9281 Fax. 972-2-561-9112 Email: [email protected] www.jcpa.org

ISBN 965-218-058-0

Production Coordinator: Edna Weinstock-Gabay Graphic Design: Rami & Jacky / Efrat / Lenka Maps: Rami & Jacky Photos: AP Photo, Government Press Ofﬁce Back cover photo: IDF Spokesman

Acknowledgments The authors wish to thank their colleagues, Deborah Norris and Marie E. Yetsin, for their assistance. The authors appreciate the advice and assistance of Daniel Taub, Adv. . Control of Crossing Points 2. Sovereignty 1. Questions ofSafe Passage E. Suggestions for theImplementation ofSafe Passage D. Variable “Territorial Recent UsageofTerms Connectivity” byProminent Political Leaders andDiplomats C. 3. “Territorial Continuity” 2. “Territorial Contiguity” 1. Terms Defined B. OriginsofSafe Passage A. Safe Passage II. Reconsidered Territory” TheCriterion of“A Defined E. Recognition andStatehood Statehood asaClaimofRight? D. 3. Self-Determination andStatehood 2. TheRule ofLegality 1. Additional Criteria for Statehood Suggested asaResultofModernDevelopments C. Additional Criteria for Statehood Independence B. 5. Criterion iv:Capacityto Enter into RelationswithOtherStates 4. Criterion iii:Government 3. Territory Criterion ii:ADefined 2. Criterion i:APermanent Population 1. The Traditional Criteria for Statehood A. asEnunciated bytheMontevideo Convention The DoctrineofStatehood I. Introduction Executive Summary Table ofContents in International Law of 1933 16 14 13 12 12 11 11 35 32 32 27 26 26 25 25 25 21 21 20 19 19 18 18 17 16 9 5

page3 page4 JCPA Publications Notes Conclusion e.ModernDevelopments inInternational Law Examples ofViable Non-ContiguousStates D. d.Independence c.ACapacityto Enter into Relations withOtherStates b.Government a.APermanent Population OtherCriteria 2. Territory ADefined 1. LegalCriteria for Statehood C. “Viable” and “Viability” Terms Defined: B. “Viable Statehood” inContext A. Viability ofaPalestinianIV. State DoesProgress inthePeace Process DiminishtheThreat ofTerrorism? D. Have Technological C. andPolitical Developments MadeDefensible Borders Obsolete? Israel’s Needfor Defensible Borders B. Israel’s Rightto Self-Defense A. Israel’sIII. SecurityConsiderations 64 56 52 48 48 48 47 47 47 47 46 46 44 44 44 40 39 37 36 36 oorp w hv ietfidnn uheape of examples non-contiguous states, whichwillbediscussed below. such nine identified have we monograph territory.Canadian of miles 500 approximately by separated are Alaska of state and its States United the foreign example, a For entity. of sovereign territory lies which between territories separated of comprised be statemay a monograph, this relevanceto particular of and addition, In Australia. as such islands, and mainland statesa areof of comprised scores Thus areas. possess territorial disconnected of consist state the may state a positive, the that in Stated unity. geographical require not does defined a of territory criterion the that is note to vital is What state orcompromise itsexistence. the of identity the affect not decrease,do increaseor by whether territory, state’s a to alterations Accordingly, certain. or fixed be territory the of boundaries the requirementthat a not is it Further, minimum territory. the prescribed of size no is there although defined a territory, for need the is One meet posits requirements. must certain entity an modern, state a as recognized and be to that traditional law, International as for thePalestinians. legal, economic, and security concerns for Israel as well raises turn, in passage, Safe conclusion. successful a disagreement additional reachtoprocess ever peace is the addressed if be must this authors the of opinion the In overlooked. calledoften is passage,” “safe commonly of issue the Bank, West the and Strip Gaza the between link territorial a of idea The Palestinians. the and Israel fundamental betweenagreement political any in elements are destruction) mass of weapons (and missiles long-range against and locally arrangements security and borders, settlements, Jewish refugees, of question the Jerusalem, of status political the as such must Israelcome to certain agreements. It and is understood that issues Authority Palestinian the Palestinian existence, “viable” into come a can state Palestinian viable a for Before state. call her reiterated Rice Condoleezza State Secretaryof U.S. 2007, 27, March On Executive Summary 2 In fact for the sake of this of sake the for fact In 1

ftefia ttso h ertre,md omninof mention no made territories, the of status final the of resolution a recommend to 1967 November in adopted was which 242, Resolution Council Security U.N. War, Six-Day 1967 the in areas these captured Israel After territories. two these between connection no was there years, twenty almost for Thus Jordan. by occupied was by controlled was Egyptian military rule. During that Strip period the West Bank Gaza the 1967 to 1948 From between GazaandtheWest Bank. applied to the sovereign link called for by the Palestinians be may this particular, In areas. geographicallydistinct its between link a to right inherent an possess not does based on past and present international practice, a state recognized as a state under international law. In addition, be should community political new a whether affect not does territories separated between link a of lack The entity in terms of adherence to the criteria for statehood. Palestiniannascent the of demanded be likely will less the creation of a Palestinian state. It is therefore likely that Today,there veryis widespread international support for that theagreement addresses. article on security arrangements, Agreement one of four Gaza-Jericho main issues Oslo-era the in mentioned first 1994. 4, May on signed was that Agreement) (Cairo Agreement Gaza-Jericho self- Palestinian was which rule DOP, in Gaza-Jericho. These negotiations resulted in the the of stage first the of implementation the concerning parties the between began negotiations signed, was DOP the council. after legislativeShortly Palestinian a of election the and self-government on agreement an and Bank, West the Palestiniansin the for empowerment early Jericho, and Gaza in self-rulePalestinian immediate included These Authority). Palestinian the become would (which PLO self- interim the governmentalarrangementsagreed the Israeland toby the outlined specifically Principles and of 1990s Declaration the of Accords Oslo The governed. constitutes a certain coherent territory that is effectively state the that — territory of control the is essential is a territorial link between Gaza and the West Bank. What 3 5 The notion of safe passage is passage safe of notion The 6

page5 page6 hetndt htdw h fcso h a-rbAl pan-Arab the of offices the down shut to threatened Evenhavemedia the come attack.under Fatah gunmen at least thirty. gunmen killed two Egyptian border guards and wounded Fatah The Gaza. and Egypt between border the on wall army Egyptian posts after at the gunmen demolished parts of the concrete fire opening Gaza in gunmen Fatah with Egypt, into spilled chaos this 2005, 5, January On control.” in longer no are is PA) (the Territories we because Palestinian dangerous very the in situation have “[t]he lawlessnessofficial, and chaos, overtaken the area, and according anarchy,to a senior Palestinian of Waves their implications for Israeli security. Palestinian aspirations for statehood are complicated by West Bank. the and PalestiniansGaza calledthe between link forby areas. In particular this may be applied to the sovereign an possess not inherent right does to a link between state its geographically distinct a practice, international under state a international as law. In addition, based politicalon past and present recognized new be a should whether community separated affect between not link does a territories of lack the reiterate, To contiguity was a requirement for statehood. not being territorially contiguous. This, even if territorial its of spite in state a recognizedprobablyas wouldbe it a recognition Palestinian overwhelming entity aspiring to statehood the would likely enjoy, and statehood, and complexrecognitionrelationshipbetweenthe of light In over the GazaStrip. loss ofcontrol, inparticular, by thePalestinian Authority’s aggravated inrecent years The securitythreat hasbeen 7

lawlessness and anarchy in PA-controlled areas. of state the of coverage their of because threats death received having Gaza and Bank West the in journalists journalism.” in lesson a him “teach would he that Fatah, of member a as himself identified who attackers, his of one by told Al Arabiya in the Gaza Strip, was beaten in 2004, and was for correspondent a Shaheen, Eddin Saif example, For territories. Palestinian the in commonplace are media they threatened to close its offices. which failing hours, 24 within station the from apology an demanded wing armed Fatah’s by distributed Leaflets Iraq, Russia, Afghanistan, and the Palestinian territories. aired documentary on the a station concerning in female families suicide bombers their in and bombers suicide Palestinianfemale“defaming” of it accusing after Bank West and Strip Gaza the in station TV satellite Arabiya into the West Bank and ultimately to Israel. to ultimately and WestBank the into lawlessness Gaza’s of spread the facilitating by have could arrangement passage safe a impact the venomous accentuates most order, the restore even to take steps to rudimentary Mazen Abu inability Chairman or PA unwillingness of the with coupled Gaza, in ‘Nobel the win severe most anarchy, ongoing The would Anarchy.’” for Prize who over Somalia in and warlords militias the with competing are we if as look it makes foreigners of kidnappings and PAon institutions attacks recurring “[t]he that stated Barghouti 1990s. the likened the in Somalia in existed Palestinian which that He to Gaza in situation by Barghouti. Hafez made editor comparison newspaper the is however, Iraq.” in Zarqawi Musab Abu terrorist Jordanian-born by controlled farms and Afghanistan in areas “Taliban-controlled to territories Palestinian political prominent the in a situation the likened Strip, Gaza the from analyst Majaideh, Jamal Dr. Indeed, vicious campaign of intimidation. a to subjected being are journalists that acknowledged gunpoint. at Islam to forcedand weeksfor two Gaza were “convert”toin held They Wiig. Olaf and Centanni Steve journalists News Foxof kidnapping 2006, 14, August the included attacks 10 The situation has deteriorated further with 12 vnP euiyofiil have officials security PA Even 13

9 Such attacks on the 14 More haunting, haunting, More 11 These into Israel, at least until the completion of the security the of completion the until least at Israel, into entry to amounts effectively Bank West the into Entry has proven to beafailure.” Egyptians the on reliance our and Corridor Philadelphi Diskin said that “[i]t is clear that our withdrawal from the more than 300 percent.” drastically,grownby has Egypt from Strip Gaza the into smuggled explosives of amount “[t]he that Committee Defense and Affairs Foreign Knesset the told agency), security (Israel’sdomestic Bet Shin the of head Diskin, Egyptian side of the border. the on forcespatrol border Egyptian of deployment the through corridor the evacuate to forces Israeli which allowed Arrangements), Agreed (the Area Rafah the in Border the along Guards Border of Force Designated a the of Deployment signed the Regarding Israel Arrangements Agreed and Egypt 2005, 1, September On raises serioussecurityconcerns for Israel. Corridor, and the possible use of a future “safe passage,” arms into Gaza. Egyptian towns, making from it border, a crucial Strip area for Egyptian Gaza the transfer Palestinian-controlledof the the along separates runs that zone eight-mile-long military a is which Corridor, Philadelphi The arrested adayearlier. PA police station in Gaza in an attempt to release a friend inadvertently killed by dozens of gunmen who attacked a (IDF) Forces base. Defense Israel nearby on European a crossing to unarmed flee to monitors Rafah the forcing the 2005, at 30, rampage December a on went to officers wife his and scene. the him flee causing vehicle, his on fire opened and cause, Palestinian the supported always has that country Muslim a Pakistan, to PA’sAmbassador the of passport diplomatic the terminal. They even confiscated the through passage preventing crossing, Rafah the to entrance the blocked also gunmen Fatah money. and of Ministries the PA Interior, Economy, and Communications, including demanding various jobs buildings, occupied have government gunmen Fatah Masked 16 That same day a 14-year-old Palestinian boy was 15 18 Further, approximately PA100 security The use by terrorists of the Philadelphi 17

20 On the basis of these statistics, 21 19 Several months later Yuval missions have made the country wary of relying on these peacekeeping U.N. various with experiences off-putting Israel’s Historically, past. the in have elsewhere and region the in programs monitoring other as dissipate further could monitors European These attack. under come already have and unarmed are they that fact ignores the border the secure could monitors these that Mission Assistance hope ambitious BorderThe Israel. to threat the assuage could the of part as monitors European of presence the that suggested have Some are likely to increase. Bank) West the from (and Israel in attacks of forms all safe passage modality enabling possibletransit to the West a Bank, and terrorists Gaza, into and Egypt from arms smuggled being with Thus, finished. be to yet are fencesecurity WestBank the of largeparts fence,since h flwo epn rmSraars h Lebanese 1701. Resolution the across Syria from border to Hizbullah, as required by U.N. Security Council weapons of flow the stem to 2 UNIFIL of failure the from apparent again is region this in forcepeacekeeping a with success minor even achieving in difficulty The unfavorable very light. a in Muhammad prophet the portraying cartoons Danish over controversy the by incensed mob Palestinian a by attack under came headquarters its when withdraw forcedto was too mission proven unarmed has this longer-lasting, goals modified with mission TIPH second extension. its on agreement an Israel reach to and (PLO) Organization Liberation Palestinian the of failure the following 1994 August in Hebronfrom withdraw to forced was mission TIPH The Hebron. in peacekeeping unique a mission designed to promote stability and normalization at attempt first the was May 1994, in inception its at hopes high encouraged which The Temporary International Presence in Hebron (TIPH), proved impossible to carry out;ittoo failed. that mandate vague a had onward 1) 1978 from (UNIFIL mission Lebanon in Force Interim Nations United The war. 1967 the of outbreak the before just Sinai in troops massing was Nasser President Egyptian when needed, most was it moment precise the at withdrawn was ForceEmergencyI Nations United 1967, In forces. 24 l o ti sget ta oe must one that suggests this of All 23 lhuh a Although 22

page7 page8 bodies. Given the quantities of explosives smuggled in bombings their explosivesstrappedtoperpetrators the which suicide of result a as injured more thousands and killedwere Israelis thousand a over nails and ball bearings. mixed together with an array of metal typically objects are such explosives as These kilograms. ten and seven between be to estimated is belt suicide a for Gaza. smuggling of weapons and explosives into Israel from preventcan the effectivelyhe can demonstratethat The acid test of Abu Mazen’s leadership will be if he as Qassam rockets. the weapons manufactured by Palestinians in Gaza, such ignore figures these Additionally, Gaza. into smuggled grenades, and 16,800 anti-tank rockets would have been anti-tank 9,600 explosives, of tons 240 year, a of period 2005. January in organizations terroristPalestinian the by announced “truce” declared smuggled into Gaza from Egypt. were missiles anti-aircraft of number and an unspecified of explosives, 200 tons anti-tank grenades, 350 five anti-tank over rockets, 2005, 18, and 12 September between Further, the Shin Bet has reported that to its knowledge, his tatters. in credibility and unfulfilled promise abovementioned Mazen’s Abu leaving avail, no to been have efforts PA. These the with cooperating into them talk to attempt to chosen has Mazen Abu criminals, and thugs, terrorists, armed of gangs against act to upon called When opposite. the gun.” one authority, one law, “[o]ne slogan: electoral his with hopes desperate these encouraged He reality. new a Arafat create would Yasser Mazen Abu When that hoped people many died impact. any, if Abbas) little, had intentions have his but (Mahmoud opposes territories disputed He the in Mazen anarchy moderate. a as Abu himself characterizes Chairman PA West Bank. any of monitoringforce along Israel’s achievements border the and Gaza with probable the about realistic be 25 28 In fact, the reality on the ground has been just just been has ground the on reality the fact, In The amount of explosivestypicallyrequiredof amount The 29 During the Second Intifada 27 26 Extrapolated over the over Extrapolated This overrode the self- uig h peiu year. previous the during 1,621 to compared as 2005 in incidents shooting 1,133 2005. in 199 to 2004 in 1,231 from truce, Palestinian effective partially the and vigilance Israeli to Due incidents. 848 attacks increased to 337 although mortar shelling fell to Qassam of number the 2005 during that reported Bet year.same the in attacks mortar 1,231 were 2004 in rockets Qassam employed 309 attacks formidable: is attacks increased of prospect The 90 kilograms ofexplosives. approximately with packed car a 40 by wounded were some and killed were Israelis fourteen 21, 2002, October on example, For devastating. more even be can bombs car Indeed, types. various of bombs of numbers frightening trulydetonate could groups terrorist Palestinian Gaza, into Egypt from h wy ad en fr ae asg o Palestinian of persons andgoods. passage safe for means and ways the would then be more forthcoming in bilaterally negotiating Israel‘sRoadmap, the couldassuaged.anxiety Israelbe by required as infrastructure terror the dismantling by as such concerns, these addressconstructively to were accede to this unprecedented demand. If the Palestinians derogation in of Israeli sovereignty, be Israel is not required would to which Strip, Gaza the and Bank between West the link territorial a upon insist some Although passage. safe implementing for proposals various the of out arising concerns security legitimate has Israel factors. different several of function a is viability that reveals research in-depth contiguous, be must state a viable be to that conviction widely-held the to Contrary the sametime.” Post respectively. convoys, truck and bus in Bank West the to Strip Gaza the from goods Palestiniansand escort to plans the halted Israel parties, the between reached “agreement” Rafah the of violations the and considerations security these of light In infrastructure. strategic or centers civilian population its to risk of level this tolerate no would 2005, country year the in attacks of number overall the in explained, “convoys and Qassams and “convoys explained, 38 36 s n pe i the in op-ed an As 35 33 ept tee decreases these Despite suicide bombings declined bombings suicide 30

34 hr wr also were There 37 cno o at flow cannot 31 32 n there and Jerusalem The Shin The Gz-et ak ovy’ o te oeet f goods of movement the for Convoys’ Bank ‘Gaza-West for provides US-brokeredagreement A Strip. Gaza the Palestinians and Egypt between the checkpoint crossing Rafah the over with negotiations conducted has it Israel’sSincefore.Strip, Gaza fromthe the disengagement to come increasingly has passage safe of subject the literature, legal international in ignored Although the for as well as Palestinians. Israel for concerns security and economic, legal, raises passage safe of question The conclusion.successful a reach to ever processis peace addressedthe be mustif dispute additional this authors ‘safethe of overlooked.opinion often the passage,’is In of issue the called commonly Bank, West the and Gaza political agreement. The idea of a territorial link between any in elements fundamental are destruction) mass of weapons (and missiles long-range against and locally arrangements security Jewish and borders, the the refugees, settlements, of question the Jerusalem, of status political the as such issues that understood is It the of one as required indeed characteristics ofstatehood underinternational law? link carefully. territorial considered a be Is to ought law international controversialand weighty this issue,on conclusions any West Bank is necessary and/or desirable. Before reaching the and Strip Gaza the between link territorial a of form aforementionedthe of usage termscan imply some that The territories. two the separate will Israel, of region southern the Negev, the of miles twentyApproximately Bank. West the in be will other the and Strip Gaza in the be will state the of area One comprise areas. territorial will two which Palestine, of state future the to references in employed commonly are passage’ ‘safe and state,’ viable ‘a connectivity,’ ‘territorial continuity,’ ‘territorial contiguity,’ ‘territorial as such Terms State. Palestinian future the of viability the of question the to turned increasingly have makers policy and scholars legal 2005, of summer the during Strip Gaza the from withdrawal Israeli unilateral the following Especially Introduction to these concerns. On March 29, 2006, a 2006, 29, March On concerns. these to response in investigation an launched Palestinians The Gaza. into Zahar, Mahmoud leader Hamas the of them brother among militants, 15 to up of entry the over concern expressed Israel and Union, European Rafah States, the at Egypt. materialized with crossing already has threat This terrorists andweapons smugglers. the for by employed be could goods designed and civilians of movement increased instrumentalities The with Israel terrorism. threaten could events same paradoxically,these However state. nascent a as entity developments bolstered the credibility of the Palestinian by Israel as the PA failed to act against terrorism. However the convoys agreement was never implemented peopleand Westthe between Strip. Gaza the and Bank industrial, commercial, andmilitary infrastructures. Israel’s mention to not areas, metropolitan Jerusalem and Aviv Tel the including Israel, in everywhere almost strike to able be would missiles these Bank, West the crossing. Rafah the via Gaza into fromEgypt smuggled been have at the civilian populations of Haifa, Tiberias, and Hadera, Hezbollah by Longer-range missiles, such as those fired increasingly with longer-range weapons. along suspects” terror Syrian and Iranian senior of entry Palestinians,the forallowingthe and observers European by open’ ‘wide “left was officials, border.borderRafahcrossing, accordingThe military to smuggledwas throughEgyptian Strip fromthe Gaza the Israel into fired rocket Katyusha a that declared article northern Israel. population centers in attacks against thecivilian for Hezbollah’s missile demonstrated support war bothHamasandFatah During the2006Lebanon 44 Fired from Gaza and, all the more so from so more the all and, Gaza from Fired 41 n eebr 05 te United the 2005, December In 43

Jerusalem Post Jerusalem 40 These 39 42

page9 page10 A masked terrorist oftheAlQuds Brigade,theIslamic Jihadterrorist wing,participates inatraining session inGazaCity. (APPhoto) will befollowed bytheauthors’ Conclusion. topics These states. non-contiguous of examples past presentconsiderationof a and include analysiswill This State. Palestinian a particularly and viable, be reality in the canstate non-contiguous a whether and ‘viability,’ examineterm will IV Part III. Part in examined be will passage’ ‘safe of context the in considerations Israel’ssecurity terms. these of implications the and means, consider will terminology its and II it what analyze and Partpassage,’ ‘safe criteria. modern additional as well as 1933, of Convention Montevideo the in out set as statehood for criteria traditional the analyze will It statehood. of doctrine the examine will I Part passage.’ ‘safe of issue the be will monograph this of focus The and implementation to thestates concerned. the country or countries in question, but leave its details in eventually see to wish would U.N. the that situation means choice.” peaceful own their of other arbitration…or conciliation, mediation, enquiry, negotiation, by solution a seek all, of first dispute…shall, any to parties “the states, which disputes,” of resolution "pacific with dealing VI, Chapter binding. legally not is it peace, the to threats aggression,"of to acts peacemeaning and breachesthe of respect with "action an as Charter U.N. the of VII Chapter 242 under adopted not Resolution was law: international by required be not may passage such that suggests This regime. passage 242, Resolution conflict, Resolution addressing efforts to resolve the Arab-Israeli Council Security U.N. decisive the because part large in controversial is passage safe a of creation The today. more critical even to the passage dialogue within safe policy-making communities of subject the the make to region, brings election the that realities changing the and 2006, in electionsPalestinian the in victory Hamas’ 47 uh eouin st u the out set resolutions Such 46 45 Rather, it was adopted under adopted was it Rather, makes no mention of any safeany of mention makesno 1933 Enunciated bytheMontevideo Convention of A. TheTraditional Criteriafor Statehoodas Statehood I. TheDoctrineof o imtbe Ohr oe otmoay factors contemporary more Other immutable. nor is it exhaustiveareneither criteria these that note to analysis,crucial an such undertaking before However, territory). second (adefined the on placed be will emphasis but discussed, be each fully in the international sphere. operate cannot entity an independence, without since independencethat is fromimplied is fourththe criterion believe to be implied in the fourth criterion. The argument in the Montevideo Convention, but which mentioned many academics specifically not is that criterion There is a fifth into relations withotherstates. (ii) territory population; permanent a (i) qualifications: person of international law should possess the following a as State “[t]he follows, as reads This 1933. Duties States, of and Rights the on of Convention I Montevideo Article the in established was statehood for criteria basic the of formulation definitive most The statehood. states. as entities identify can one which by means a have must law the statehood, of conceptlegal a is there that Given is no universally accepted of international law, there are primary actors in the field Despite the fact that states subjects of international law. States are the principle ento ftetr ‘state.’ term the of definition ; (iii) a government; and (iv) a capacity to enter to capacity a (iv) and government; a (iii) ; 48 n te wrs tee ut e rtra for criteria be must there words, other In 49 50 (emphasisadded) hs v rtrawill criteria These five a defined a

page11 page12 rbnl ed ht “htvr a b te importance the be may “Whatever that, held tribunal State Polish v. Uschaft Gas-Gese Continental the in Tribunal Arbitral Mixed Polish German territory the defined by implies this, it is not the case. This was confirmed Although certain. or fixed be territory Further, it is not a requirement that the boundaries of the miles. square 8.2 only the is in Ocean, island South Pacific times an Nauru, 0.1 some DC. Washington, miles, of size square the 10 only is Ocean, Pacific South the in group island Tuvalu,an States. United the of size the times 1.8 miles; square 6,592,771 is Russia control ofterritory represents theessence ofastate. territory, its and state a between relationship the to as theories territorial conflicting various areThere function. to clearly quite are fromterritorialbase which a need such, as and, entities States territory. defined a of that is concerned) most with is monograph one this which the (and statehood of criterion second The Territory 2. Criterion ii:ADefined municipal lawonnationality. belongs to the population of a state is determined by the consequence. no of is population the of size who identify themselvesThe territory. with permanent a specific a of that connotesThis population. stablea community peopleof is statehood for criterion first The 1. Criterion i:APermanent Population differing situations. in vary may criteriarespective the on placed weight the Moreover, below. discussed be will which recognition, and self-determination as such relevant, be also may small states. very and large very both finds of theterritory. Indeed,one prescribed minimumsize no is there territory, defined While there isaneedfor a 51 53 52 Who actually Who ae The case. Deutsche 54 but these disputes are antiquated or marginal, it is advisable existence. its or increase today.or decrease, do not affect even the identity of the state continue Accordingly, that alterations to a state’s territory, whether by disputes border despite 1948 in Nations United the to admitted was State The principle. this demonstrates further Israel of State The territory.” actually exercises independent public authority over that have not yet been accurately delimited and boundaries that the state its though even consistency, sufficient a has to say that a state exists….[i]t is enough that this territory be considered cannot as having any question territory whatsoever…. in In order state the affected legally been not has delimitation this as long as that maintain to as far so go cannot one boundaries of delimitation the of noei i te ol’ lret rhplg with geographically united. archipelago not are others largest many and states, These world’s islands. 17,508 the is Indonesia archipelagic islandchains of30atolls and1,152islands. two are Islands Marshall The islands. many also comprise can state A Keeling. and Christmas like islands distant very and Norfolk, Tasmania, including islands and mainland the of consists which Australia, as such islands, and mainland a of comprised are states Many its of regardless exist dimensions. to right Israel’s deny openly Jihad Islamic Palestinian toorganizationsnotethat Hamas, as such areas. disconnected territorial a state mayconsist of geographical unity. Indeed, that thestate possess territory doesnotrequire the criterion ofadefined What isvital to note isthat 55 56 Lest one be tempted to assume that assume to tempted be one Lest 59 and even the State of Iran of State the even and 57 Hezbollah, 58 60

Effective governance may be determined by the degree degree the by determined be control. may governance Effective government under territory the within life of aspects all regulating a institutions of is system required complete is what that appears It government. of forms various the given government, term the by meant is what uncertain is it However, statehood. entity’s an to crucial is government Effective a of government. that is Convention Montevideo the in cited criterion third The Government iii: Criterion 3. below. discussed to be concerns additional state raises a non-contiguous creating of possibility The passage.’ ‘safe in of issue involved the consideration only the not However, is theory legal be right. inherent state’s to a or statehood, contiguity, for if prerequisite indispensable an not as is below, discussed appears it Theoretically, governed. effectively is that territory coherent certain a constitutes state the that -- territory of control the is essential is What Bank. West the and Gaza between link made territorial a of territories, mention no the of status ﬁnal the of resolution a recommend to 1967 November 242, in adopted Resolution was which Council Security U.N. the War, in areas Six-Day these captured two Israel After these between territories. connection no was there years, twenty West almost for Thus the Jordan. by occupied period was Bank that During rule. by military controlled was Egyptian Strip Gaza the 1967 to 1948 From between GazaandtheWest Bank. applied to the sovereign link called for by the Palestinians be may this particular In areas. distinct geographically its between link a to right inherent an possess not does based on past and present international practice, a state recognized as a state under international law. In addition, be should community political new a whether affect not does territories separated between link a of non- lack The of examples such contiguous states, whichwillbediscussed below. nine identiﬁed have we fact, territory. Canadian of miles 500 approximately by separated are Alaska of state its and States United The 62

61 In Committee of Jurists appointed to investigate the the investigate the to in islands the of status appointed Jurists of Committee declaration the independence. after of time some restored only was Order interventions. and actions military numerous of its subject the thereafter was declared territory Its the Finland independence. After 1917, of 1807. Revolution since November empire Russian the of part the and autonomous an Finland been had Finland to respectively. Congo reference distinction by The illustrated be authority. can exercise to title or right the and authority, of exercise actual the aspects: two has actually government effective of requirement The doubtful. is institutions the of effectiveness the out, breaks war civil a example, for If, territory. the within chaos or calm of e gvrmn ws iie ad akut ad was and bankrupt, and divided was government new the transfer; this for made been had preparations No independence. it granted and -- Congo the -- entity new the to right that transferred Belgium 1960, In Congo. the govern to right the enjoyed Belgium 1960, to Prior a government. effective despite of lack 1917, in state a as recognized was Finland state. new a in government effective to relating rule stringent rather the apply to not chose this they case, In 1917. after and before continuity Finland’s of because and Finland, of recognition Soviet to attached they that importance the of because but government, point, this effective an had on Finland that believed they because not Jurists the of ﬁnding the with disagreed exist.” not did State sovereign a of formation the for required conditions the time, considerable a “for that Finland to respect with case ofthe reference can bemadeto the to exercise authority -- element --therightortitle With respect to thesecond 63 64 65 Given this, the International International the this, Given The Commission of Rapporteurs Rapporteurs of Commission The Congo Aaland Islands Islands Aaland . dispute held held dispute 66 Thus, Thus,

page13 page14 or substantially. The second is the absence of the the of absence absence the even or state the another by power of exercise is second The exclusively substantially. either or territory, power, particular self-governing a exercising on of community existence organized the an is first The elements. two embodies independence state that asserts Crawford Convention. the of place in individual criterion for statehood independence listed in the state Montevideo of notion the on focuses Crawford Soon?’ Too Much Too Palestine: of State the of Creation ‘The article, his in this discusses control effective territory. claimed the over of lack of account on statehood for Jerusalem in Mosque YasserChairman Arafat as well as in front of the Al-Aksa PLO by 1988 15, November on Algiers in that declared was Palestine’ of ‘State to so-called The fifteen years. past twenty the over changed have campaign statehood for Palestinian consider the to of circumstances interesting the is how It governance. effective of lack a despite statehood Palestinian of recognition by control the PA,enjoyed support the rudimentary with combined below, discussed as State, Palestinian future a of acceptance international universal nearly Today, has little control over theterritory. government even if, practically speaking, the government effective of requirement the be consideredto have satisfied will and territory the govern to right international the has independence formal and full granted is that Thus, presumed. previously than stringent less is government of requirement the that fact the in lies answer the likely, most and hand, other the On constitutive. was recognition that fact the in or unwarranted, and premature was recognition that fact the in lie could answer The state? a as accepted and recognized be to came Congo the that it was How state and was granted membership in the United Nations. a recognizedas widely was Congo the entity, new the in governmenteffective of lack evident the and chaos, this and military assistance was provided by the U.N. Despite weredispatched to toCongo the intervene, financial and troops foreign other and Belgian Therefore, territory. entirehardlyletthe alonecontrol city capitalable to the 68 did not meet the prerequisites prerequisites the meet not did 69 Professor James Crawford James Professor rm facie prima 67

nw state new a ieggmn fo te aa ti i Ags 2005 August in marks anew level ofauthority for thePA inGaza. Strip Gaza the from disengagement Israeli The reasons. security forterritories the areasof many presencein military maintained Israel time which during 2000, year the in Intifada Second the of outbreak the following notably control, most periods, rudimentary several PA’swere there the Despite Accords 1990s. Oslo the in the that following PA territories the by the Palestinian replaced governed was the PLO in The changed Territories. has much 1990, Since community.” self-governing “organized an of short far fell influence this that held he disputed but territories, the in influence considerable exerts PLO the such exercise that 1990 to in acknowledged Crawford power. state, governing another in vested right, a of international obligations. that no other entity carries out or is responsible for their so independence, enjoys question in entity the whether on depends further It implemented. effectively be not could obligations international which without a territory, in government internal the depends, of power capacity the on The part, in states. into other enter with to relations capacity the the in is to Convention referredMontevideo statehood of criterion fourth The Relations withOtherStates 4. Criterion iv:Capacityto Enter Into governance. requirementthe satisfy of factPalestinians in the would whether to as a doubts serious of are there territory,’ criterion ‘defined the satisfy Territories Palestinian the Therefore,although areas. Palestinian the in presence a establish to al-Qaida and Hezbollah of efforts the by semblanceany order.of multiplied been has chaos This from Gaza, the rule in Gaza has been anarchy rather than the in Introduction. above SpecificallysincetheIsraelidisengagement discussed as dissipated, have to seems WestBank and Strip Gaza the over enjoyed PAonce the that control rudimentary the that is worrying is What 71

Examples ofViable, Non-ContiguousStates Kaliningrad Oblast Brunei Poland U.A.E. Baltic South ChinaSea Sea Musandam Peninsula Russian Federation Gulf of Riga Bandar Seri Begawan Straits of Lithuania Hormuz Muskat Riga Estonia Latvia Malaysia Gulf of Oman Iran Oman Indonesia Belarus Atlantic Ocean South Chile Paciﬁc Ocean Congo (Ambeno) Timor Oecussi West Cabinda Indonesia Luanda Timor East Timor East Rio Grande Argentina Timor Democratic Sea Republic of Angola Atlantic Congo Ocean

page15 page16 independence as a criterion for the continued existencecontinued the for criterion a as independence and statehood independence for as an initial qualification between distinguish must one Thus, differentcontexts. Whileseemingly simple, termthe operates differently in authorities. its of disposal the at power governmental real the -- state putative the of independence effective the torefers which independence, actual is second The territory. the of authorities separate the in territory vested is a over power governing where exists which forms independence, of formal independence. is The first as to what form it should take. There are two recognized In demonstrating one’s independence, the question arises to theauthorityofanotherstate. and the second is that such territory must not be subject territory, separate is emphasizes two elements: the first locus classicus opinion Judge Anzilotti gave what is considered to be the Union Customs Austro-German State.” a of therein, to the exclusion of any other State, the functions in regard to a portion of the globe is the right to exercise Palmas states.’ other with relations into enter it as equivalent to, and the foundation of, the ‘capacity to criterion, scholars fifth Convention, implied some an as Montevideo by identified the been has of ‘independence’ ambit the Outside 5. Independence requirements. to meetinternational legal more, would beinsufficient of suchcapacity, without to doso.Themere assertion than merely assert acapacity in foreign relations, rather entity must actually engage Practically speaking,an case, Judge Huber stated that “[i]ndependence that stated Huber Judge case, 75 hs oin a eaoae uo i the in upon elaborated was notion This dfiiino needne Ti definition This independence. of definition 72 73 while others simply view simply others while case. 77 76 74 n i minority his In In the In Island of Island 79 78

a far less stringent requirement. existingtoAn statesubject independence. is actual and regarded as existent -- it must demonstrate both formal be will it before independence substantial demonstrate to have will sovereignprevious a from power of grant a or secession by created is that state new A state. a of f n niy o bev itrainl a i a criterion a is law international observe to entity an of part the on willingness that suggested sometimes is It Law: International Observe to Ability and Willingness b) statehood, but not a mandatory criterion for statehood. for case the supporting evidence of piecerelevant a be after soon become failed states. Permanence of and such an entity may statehood, for criteria traditional satisfy they the which during existence brief very a have statehood. of recognition for precondition a as permanence Draft provides Institute’s Restatement Law American The Permanence: a) be additionalindependentcriteria: to appear forth sets Crawford that standards additional of civilization, recognition, and legal order. Not all of the and ability to observe international law, a certain degree willingness permanence, standards: such discusses ﬁve Crawford statehood. for criteria suggested additional certain out sets CrawfordProfessor Law, International in Statehood for Criteria The entitled article 1977 his In B. AdditionalCriteriafor Statehood Palestinian entitycould It isconceivable thatthe and actualindependence. demonstrate bothformal a state, must beable to entity, to berecognized as Thus, thePalestinian both forms ofindependence. demonstrate theexistence of 81 oee, tts may states However, 80 82 eetd A eape f uh sae s Rhodesia. is state a such of example An statehood rejected. to claims their had have nevertheless and statehood for criteria traditional the meet to seem that entities been have There practice. state to response in formulated been have criteria These mooted. been have statehood for criteria additional years recent In Developments inInternationalLaw Suggested asaResultofModern C. AdditionalCriteriafor Statehood (as discussed above), andassertions ofstatehood. recognitionself-determination, legality, of rule a below, discussed as are, criteria These statehood. for criteria however, other modern criteria that do are,supplement the traditional There criteria. independent additional standards do not, in the opinion of the authors, constitute The criteria that Crawford sets out as possible additional whether itisanindependentcriterion isquestionable. government,of thereforeand indicationan statehood,of While legal order is an important element of the criterion state. a of existence the for criterion a is order legal of existence the that thought be might It Order: Legal e) least, itcan constitute evidence oflegal status. cantherefore factorcrucial a be statehood,in the at and Recognition constitutive. be can recognition statehood, for criteria traditional the under state a as a qualify not does strictly entity an where not cases in statehood, for is criterion recognition While Recognition: d) criterion. part of the criterion of governance and not as a separate as this sees Crawford civilization. of degree have a attained must it state a as recognized be to entity an for that view the supported occasion, on has, States United the of practice The Civilization: of Degree Certain A c) statehood. fromaredistinct both However,law. the by areallowed that sanctions for even or state a as entity recognizean observe to failure international law may constitute grounds accurately, for a refusal to More statehood. for 84 83

86 87

international practice. international of area this in acceptance gained have and been developed have considerations further that suggests This as Guinea-Bissau. is state a recognized such of example An and states. accepted statehood, been have for they criteria yet and traditional the satisfy to seemingly fail that entities been have there Conversely, characteristics. these share that entities those examining by developed can assess what additional standards for statehood have essence one characteristics, common these Given statehood. the of constitute principles five these action. Crawford, of freedom its of favor in rebuttable presumption a draw will tribunal or court international an derogation, such any to consentedfact in has state a derogation from equality. In case of doubt as to whether must a or question jurisdiction international of exercise in an to consent state the Thus, to. agreed specifically be must principles these from derogation any and finally, population, military capability, or economic strength. dimension, territorial Fifth of regardless equal, as regarded generally.statesor arethat fourthcharacteristicis The situation specific a in either actuallyconsentstatemust international compulsory to process,settlement.Toor jurisdiction the subject so be subject not are states principle, in characteristic that, that Crawford is identifies states. other interferenceby of independent affairs, which means that their jurisdiction is plenary and have exclusive competence with respect to their internal states Second, arena. international the in acts perform competence, plenary have states First, modern statehood. constitute thefoundation of which characteristics, five of states. Crawford identified general legal characteristics enumerated exclusive and Professor Crawford 89 ne alia inter 90 The third The 91 For to , 88

page17 page18 s sae n ag pr de o h efc ta self- that effect government. of the criterion the to on had has due determination part large in state a as recognized was Congo the government, of be breakdown only could what virtual the and territory the within turmoil Despite as described 1960. in independent became which Congo, Belgian former the to reference by demonstrated be can This lessened.substantially is concerned, is authority of exercise actual for the as far as criterion necessary, standard the that the sense the in government affected has Self-determination the State ofwhichthey are apart. of own wishes the its of irrespective choose government of to form people specific a of right the mean also can It intervention. without government of form own their choose to right their particular, states,in and, meanings. It can mean the sovereign equality of existing distinct quite two has term the Crawford, Professor to territory. particular a in people the of will Sahara the in defined was self-determinationterm The 2. Self-Determination andStatehood criteria. traditional the of all even ifitsatisfies into bring statehood, claiming would entity an of credibility the standardsquestion these of infringement precepts. serious A legality. of rule basic the to content give principles some forth sets United the Nations, of Charter the with accordance in States, Law International Among Cooperation of and Relations Friendly Concerning Principles of Declaration The its claimto statehood cannot bemaintained. or norm, then no matter how effective the entity may be, areconsidered toillegal be termsinternationalin of law international law. If an entity emerges through acts that with accordance in so do must statehood, of standards the traditional the positively, satisfying in Framed entity, an that asserts rule norm. or law any breached international have not must entity an statehood, for criteria traditional the satisfying in that states rule This 1. TheRule ofLegality case as the free and genuine expression of the of expression genuine and free the as case 96

95 92 According 93 94 These Western n ose h rts a. n12 h ertr was 1953, territory In Empire. British the the into incorporated formally 1923 In ﬂag. British the the hoisted and and Harare in Shona camp up set Rhodes the Cecil 1890 In as Ndebele. such tribes independent by the of arrival the to British, the area Prior today known as Zimbabwe was occupied Rhodesia. of case the by claim to statehood rejected. the its have will state, of a be to purports which support but populace, the lacks that entity an basis, this On is self-determination of consideredalso sometimes to criteriona own.be its of principle the prerequisite statehood, traditional of this modifying to addition In be could entity the recognized asastate despite internal turmoil. Therefore lessened. signiﬁcantly weregovernment effectiverequirements for the Congo, the in self-determination of attainment was thereSince the country asawhole. Thiswasnotachieved. independence, such that the ‘state’ forwould be acceptable to the people prerequisiteof a rule majority made Kingdom United The independence. own her demanded Rhodesia Subsequently, 1964. in independence gained 1963, the Federation was terminated. Malawi and Zambia In Crown. British the under Federation African Central formtotogetherthe joined Malawi) Nyasaland(now and Zambia) (now Rhodesia Northern Rhodesia, Southern achieved. self-determination wasnot imposed onitbecause and infact sanctionswere international community, not recognized bythe hands ofCaucasians, was which left power inthe independence. Thestate, unilaterally declared In 1965,IanSmith 100

99 This can be demonstrated 97 98

n h ceto o a tt. ovrey te declaratory the Conversely, state. a of creation the in crucial be can recognition Thus, existence. into come of a state, such that only through recognition does a state theory. The former asserts that recognition is constitutive declaratory the and theory constitutive the recognition: of theories two are There between statehood. and recognition relationship significant but there complicated Shaw, a N. is Malcolm Professor by discussed As D. Recognition andStatehood that itmayberequired practically. not fact the does despite statehood, for right criterion a be of to appear claim a as statehood of assertion an authors, the of opinion the in Thus, criteria statehood. for the satisfies question in entity the whether will to claim a as states existing by such assessment an invite to is achieve that All sufficient. not is statehood assert must entity an claims entity However,merestatehood.an the factthat state, a as recognized being before that logical seem would it speaking, Practically modern criterion for statehood. additional an constitute would such declaration then a assertion, express an requires statehood circumstance factual or a actions? or expressassertions no requiring statehood, statehood assert is expressly to alternatively, necessary it Is 3. Statehood asaClaimofRight? on otherstates intheregion.” have would independence its effect the on and viability military and political, economic, its on depends independent state an of desirability The solution. best the be not may ‘self-determination’ seeking group each for who stated, “[T]he establishment of an independent state statehood is made clear by Professor Malvina Halberstam not does self-determination it.” exercising a of or choice method that particular choice, of consequence free particular a a by suggested not by be may satisfied is “it self-determination Dillard, that Judge in of and, words forms self- the various for take demand can a Self-determination that note statehood. confernecessarily not does to determination important is It a fortiori fortiori a 103 102 ofr rgt to right a confer h fc that fact The 104 If indeed If 101

On the other hand, if veryfewif hand, statesother the recognizeOn entity, an statehood. for criteria the of proof of burdenlesser a to is widelyrecognizedstate, entity therefore,a as subject be will it an If statehood. for criteria the with comply to have will entity the stringently more the recognition, statehood. Conversely, the more sparse its international may be demanded in terms of adherence to the criteria of less the enjoys, entity an that recognition international of degree the greater the follows: as explained be can relationship The state law. international between a of purposes the as for entity relationship an of existence inverse the and recognition significant a is adopt, there to chooses one recognition of view Whichever once thefactual criteria for statehood exist are satisfied. to said be can state a since state, a the of existence to relevant not is recognition that asserts theory ieped nentoa spot o te rain f a of creation the for support international widespread abstaining). states 36 and opposing Israel and States United the favor, in 104 of of adoption the Resolution 43/177 (the Resolution was adopted by a vote through Assembly General Nations given states 114 from was 1988 recognition receiving in support international widespread declared State Palestinian the of 1975. (XXIX) 3237 Resolution United Assembly under General Nations Nations United the in status observer 1993. since by recognized been people” Palestinian the of representative has the “as PLO Israel the that fact the is first The with respect to thecriteria for statehood. greatermuch burdena proofto of subject be will it then several factors. This can bededuced from international recognition. receive overwhelming Palestinian State would Presumably, afuture 108 h tid atr s ht atog premature, although that, is factor third The 107 The second is that the PLO was granted was PLO the that is second The 109 n big eonzd y h United the by recognized being and 110 oevr tdy hr is there today Moreover, 106

105

page19 page20 nhie i te hre o te ntd ain, for Nations, United the of Charter the in enshrined rights human of principles The entities. non-state and individuals of protection the and law, international in rights human on natural emphasis growing of the thinking, revival law the by confirmed be to appears This have developments technologicalterritory. of criterion the of importance the minimized new that Dembinski writes Ludwig significance. same the possesses longer no Ages, Middle the sincerelations international of basis the constituted has which territory, that noted of international law. For example, Charles De Visscher territorially-basedview a of decline the postulated have diminished. has territory’ defined ‘a of criterion traditional suggest the of weight the law that international of Recent field the in criterion. developments each of significance the and criteria traditional the impacted authors, the of opinion the in statehoodhave,for criteria the to additions modern The Reconsidered Territory’ E. TheCriterionof‘A Defined large impactonstatehood. criteria. traditional the satisfy must entity an which to degree the impacts state. complex relationship a between recognition and statehood of recognition the value towards evidentiary considerable of be can recognition is recognition that act. is legal a than rather political a today is it that and declaratory, view prevailing The statehood. requirementfor a was contiguity territorial if even This, contiguous. territorially being not its of spite in state a as recognized be probably would it enjoy, likely would statehood overwhelming to aspiring the entity Palestinian a and recognition statehood, and recognition complexbetweenrelationship the of light In statehood. for criteria abovementioned the to adherence of terms in entity Palestinian the of demanded be likely will less statehood, and recognition between relationship the of view in and enjoy, would State Palestinianfuture a that Palestinian State. Given the nearly universal recognition 111 However, there are situations where even today even where situations are there However, 113 Therefore, recognition can have a have Therefore,canrecognition 114 ned svrl publicists several Indeed, 112 ute, the Further, 116 115

there are manynew criteria for statehood. that fact the with accords This did. once role it than todaylesser a fulfils territory’ defined ‘a of criterion the in the opinion of the monograph’s pre- authors, suggests that its but dominant, eminence has been modified. remain might territory that whilehowever,Evenacknowledgesasserting this, Shaw law still retains its position as the foundational hypothesis. international of view based territorially the that asserts correctly,probably Shaw, Professor trend, this Despite modern in international lawawayfrom shift territorial dominance. a been has there that suggests This entities. non-state to applicable primarily are example, 118 This acknowledgement, 117 hrl atr h Dcaain f rnils a signed, was Principles of Declaration the after Shortly council. legislative Palestinian a of election the and self-government on agreement an and Bank, West the Palestiniansin the empowermentforearly Jericho, and Gaza Palestinianin self-rule immediate included These self-governmentarrangementsparties. the of agreed by to Declaration interim the Israeli-Palestinian outlined This signed. was joint (DOP)Principles a 1993, 13, of the Palestinians in the peace process. reply,representativeInIsraeltherecognized asPLO the recognizing the right of Israel to exist in peace and security.Yasser Arafat to then Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak process Rabin peace Oslo occurred the in September 1993, with a letter sent in by the late development major first The what became known as the Oslo Peace Process. occurring concurrently with the Madrid Conference began no agreements were ever reached. However, secret talks session,plenary followedmultilateralthe meetings and joint Jordanian-Palestinian delegation. Although bilateral attended by all the major states in the region, as well as a W. Bush and then Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev, was under the joint Chairmanship of then President George H. Conference,Madrid The Framework. Madrid the of out grew thatnegotiations peace the to backtraced be can passage safe of origins Israeli-Palestinian the and conflict, link between Gaza and the West Bank in the context of the territorial a The idea to of safe refers passage specifically Condoleezza Rice, demand of Israel. suchas President George W. Bush and Secretary of State phrasesvitalisassessing in thatwhatispolicymakers,it these of meaning the determining fact, In pedantic. or academic merely not is concern The ways. divergent in used are they Moreover meaning. clear no have to appearphrases theregarding terminology, ariseasthis Concerns State. Palestinian future a reference to with ‘territorial continuity,’ and ‘territorial connectivity’ spoken One will often hear phrases such as ‘territorial contiguity,’ A. Origins of Safe Passage II. Safe Passage 119 On September 120

residents of the Gaza Strip and the Jerichoarea,fortheandand Stripresidents Gaza the of safe passage between the Gaza Strip and Jericho area for be shallthereagreementstatesthat this of ArticleIX, I, the Jericho area are set out in Annex I, Article of IX.” and passage Strip Gaza transportationthe betweenand persons safe for “[a]rrangements that specifies and Bank) West the in (located area Jericho the and Strip Gaza the betweenpassage safe with deals XI Articleis, agreementissuesthefourmainthat ofaddresses. That Jericho Agreement article on security arrangements, one Gaza- the The in notion of safe mentioned passage is first the Cairo Agreement) that was signed on May 4, 1994. as Gaza-JerichoknownAgreement(also the resultedin was Palestinian which self-rule in Gaza-Jericho. DOP, These negotiations the of stage first implementationthe of the concerning parties the between begannegotiations is n oeot hr sn ento fsf passage, safe First not and foremost, of there is no definition passage. does safe of Annex description specific the a provide detailed,sufficiently rather is it Although route of safe passage had to remain open at all times. the arrangements for safe passage. However, at least one Further, Israel could, for security or safety reasons, modify andregulations applicable in Israel and the West Bank. laws the tosubject be towerepassage the usingThose time. designated a within journey his/her complete to hadpassenger a androute,designated the fromdepart to forbidden was It interrupted. be not could passage safe the on journeyOne’s Cooperation Committee.and Coordination Affairs Civil Joint the -- forum different a in upon agreed and discussed be to were issuance the However,Israel.modalitiesissued thebywerebe for to safe passage card, failing which the safe passage permits permita enablingenterIsraeltoAasused onecould be passage vehicle permit in the case of drivers with vehicles. safe a passagecardorsafe a carry to passagehadsafe one of the attached maps. Every person that wished to use employedtobe between these points were delineated on and the Vered Yericho crossing point, and the three routes Safe passage was transportation.to be effected andat the Erez persons crossing point for hours daylight during visitors to these areas. Israel was to ensure such passage 122 Annex 121 124 123

page21 page22 the route ofsafe passage. governalongPalestinianwould or law wherelaw Israeli unclear is It unilaterally? decisions make Israel could or criteria, on agree to have sides the would example, For permits. passage safe granting in use would Israel mention as to who will guard the passage, or what criteria Israelis as well? Further, there is no agreement or even or businessmen, tourists,foreign by used be it could or Palestiniansalone, of use the for be passage the Would road,a it be -- elevatedtunnel, rail,air-link. highway, or and no details as to the form that the safe passage will take Palestinian police charge Hamassupporters during clashesinGaza City. (APPhoto) September 28,1995. known asOslo II),signedon and theGazaStrip(also Agreement ontheWest Bank mentioned intheInterim Safe passage isnext pointaround MevoHoron.Unlike Strip-JerichoGaza the additionalcrossingTarkumyaan thecrossing and point, goods), (for (for crossingpoint Karni the cars), point and persons crossing Erez the points: crossing four via implemented during be to passage was passage Such such hours. daylight ensure will Israel goods. and with the Gaza Strip for the movement of persons, vehicles Bank West the connecting passage safe be shall there providesthat X,Article I, Annex I.” Annex in out set are transportation between the West Bank and the and Gaza Strip persons of passage safe for “[a]rrangements that ArticleXXIX ofOslo IIdeals with safe passage, andstates Cairo Agreement. in the previous agreements, such as the abovementioned provisions all supersede or incorporate agreement this It is important to note that the arrangements made under ots I a ie poiin hn rvosy ged to, previously agreed than provision wider a In routes. designated the from depart or journeys their interrupt to permitted not were They only. law Israeli to subject were route passage safe the using those agreement, 125

epcs bt h sds i are ht hr wud be would there that agree did sides the but respects, most in failed 2001 January in negotiations Taba The passage andwould alsocontrol thecrossing points. Israel would have sovereignty over the land used for safe security at the crossing points of the safe passage. Thus, and safety ensuring for necessary measures inspection apply to Israel’sright from derogating as construed be crossing the would Protocol the control in nothing that would asserting by Israelpoints that imply did it Significantly, passage. such of nature the discuss to or passage, safe previousagreements, failedalso define to than detailed more respects certain in while Protocol, a view to implementing Article X of Annex I to Oslo II. The made Oslounder fact,In II. Protocolthe enteredwas into with commitments the affirms Protocol The 1999. 5, October on signed was Strip Gaza the the and Bank West between Passage Safe Concerning Protocol The strip oflandusedfor safe passage. strongly suggests it that Israel retained as sovereignty provisionover the vital a be is This passage only. law safe Israeli to using subject people that provides it that in most importantly, Oslo II differs from the Cairo Agreement passage permits. This raised security concerns. Perhaps safe of granting the to regard with discretion unilateral deny use of the safe passage is limited. Israel did not have can deny safe passage permits. However, Israel’s right to Israel whom people those stipulates II Oslo Agreement, Cairo the Unlike realization. its for mechanisms the on Cairo the than detailedAgreement, it more too fails slightly to definesafepassageortoelaborate is II Oslo While by the Israeli police and would operate twice a week. personscouldshuttleuse buseswhichescortedwouldbe Such provisions.passage safeviolated had whopersons Israel could deny the use of its territory for safe passage by safe passage vehicle permits issued by or permitsIsrael passage safe Agreement,were Cairo required. the under As routes remained open for safe passage. that ensuring while arrangements passage the modifypassageroute orsafe a operationof the halt temporarily reasons, safety or security for could,Israel 128

126 n o the of one 127 the outbreak oftheSecond Intifada inSeptember 2000. Little came of these negotiations, which closely followed and the issue of sovereignty over it was left undecided. link territorial the governing regime the of nature the creationthe on formsome of safeof passage. However, agreed parties the that implies This be territoriallylinked. to were Gaza and Bank West the that and Hebron district, the to Gaza of north the from passage safe a its otherneighbors.” and Israel with security and peace in side by side living State Palestinian viable and democratic, independent, an of emergence the in “result would that parties” the between negotiated “settlement, a was Roadmap the of and it imposed obligations on both parties. The objective settlement, the a reach to take to parties specified two the for steps Roadmap The of conflict. the the of in resolution auspices development major a the constituted Quartet, the under Conflict, the to Israeli-Palestinian Solution Two-State Performance-Based Permanent A a to of Roadmap proposal 2003 Bush’s W. George President process Oslo the of failure the After nature isfallacious. some of link territorial a necessitating as provision this respectively.other the annex and the separate a Strip, assureGaza the or WestBank the either reachwith agreement to not would intended Israel were that Palestinians articles the fact, In the GazaStripand link ofsomesortbetween principle, to aterritorial agreements agreed, in parties to theOslo interim Some argue thatthe provisions. understanding ofthe is basedonanerroneous West Bank.However, this 131 130 Thus, interpreting Thus, 129

page23 page24 of efforts by the respective parties to meet their redoublingRoadmap the for called Annan, General of the U.N., Kofi Secretary- then 2005 December in example, For it. to referstill bodies international and parties both that fact the of light in relevant is document the with, complied Although the timetable set by the Roadmap has not been realization. in its to Roadmap themselves committed the and principle of content the accepted sides both his to reservations reservations,acceptancesuch Despite Roadmap. the of fourteen attached Sharon Ariel the EndofIsraeli Palestinian Conflict. Agreementand Status Permanent a with dealt III Phase Finally, Roadmap. the of II Phase in implemented be that to were agreements suggests prior in passage safe of provisions This contiguity. territorial maximum enhance to agreements prior of implementation be to was there process, this of part As settlement. status permanent a towards step a as constitution, new a on with State Palestinian sovereignty,based of attributes provisionalbordersand independent an creating on focused be to were efforts wherein phase, transition a was II Phase institutions. Palestinian building and life, Palestinian normalizing violence, and terror ending at directed was Roadmap the of I Phase obligations. their of each with compliance their and parties the of efforts faith good the upon depended and required Roadmap in parallel, unless otherwise stated. Progress under the obligations their perform to expected were parties the There were three phases to the Roadmap. In each phase with theRoadmap. towards peace inaccordance an opportunityfor advancing which hebelieved created the DisengagementPlan, Ariel Sharon formulated Israeli PrimeMinister Roadmap’s proposal, then Subsequent to the o n nentoa cosn pit n h Gaza-Egypt the on point crossing international an herself to committed only not Israel agreement, this In concerning the Rafah crossing on the Gaza-Egypt border. Palestinians the with agreement an into entered Israel installations. military all and villages four including Bank, West the in areas certain existing Israeli towns and villages, and the evacuation of all including Strip, Gaza the of evacuationwere the plan this of aspects main The 2004. April in public made was Plan Disengagement Sharon’s of Outline General The or theRoadmapinitsentirety. either expressly or tacitly, the provisions of the renounced,Roadmap have involved parties the of none Further, Roadmap.” the to committed is Israel of State “[t]he that said he when 2005, September in Sharon Ariel by obligations. ne Gz truh h Rfh odr ih gp, as Egypt, with border Rafah the through Gaza enter from Sinai. in flowed fact in have explosives and weapons amounts of large Yet, and Gaza. into weapons Egypt of from explosives movement the prevent PA the that required agreement The Agreement. Rafah the under commitments their PAthe fulfill toof part failurethe on a to due is This actualized. been not has promise this between Gaza and the West Bank by December 15, 2005, operating convoys bus to commitment Israel’s Despite is still the same as the safe passage agreed to previously. and Gaza between link the West Bank will the be implemented, and whether how in fact it determine to difficult is adopted.” thatappropriate arrangements toensure security willbe securityprimecontinuinganda is concern forIsrael and andAccess from andtoGaza: toisit“understoodbe that Movement on Document Agreement the in reservation truckconvoys for transit goods.ofThere importantanis and people of transit for convoys bus of establishment the agreedtoparties The convoys. of passage, butsafe of not speaks 2005, 15, November dated Gaza, to and The Agreement Document on Movement and Access from people between thePalestinian Territories. and goods of movement the facilitating to but border, 136 oevr troit hv be alwd to allowed been have terrorists Moreover, 135 This provision iswidely phrased, such that it 132 iia sniet wr expressed were sentiments Similar 134 Post-disengagement, 133

can mean “thecondition oftouching orbeing incontact” several meanings, three of which are relevant. Contiguity in As defined 1. ‘Territorial Contiguity’ sure be to which meaningthespeaker intends to use. difficult it making definition, one than more has one each onlybut differentarenot other, from each have been used to describe what is desired. These terms When referring to the idea of safe passage, several terms B. Terms Defined the safe passage. of characteristics the examine to important is it below, security detail these more in discussed Given be will which considerations, Israel. for concerns security terrorists, Palestinian and ordinary Palestinians both on restrictions ease convoys the Thus, issue ofconvoys islegitimate. The position that has been adopted by the Israelis on this dependent onthesecuritysituation. is convoys the starting that is Ministry Defense the of terror.” fighting about serious is PA the until delayed be will (convoys) arrangement new this operating of discussion whole “[t]he that, said Sharon, Ariel for spokesman then Gissen, Ra’anan ground, on the facts the of light In Introduction. the in discussed from there cross into Israel. convoys to the West Bank, and terrorists will simply use the between Israel and Gaza, barrier along the border of attempting to cross the entry into Israel. In place to Gaza effectively means A convoy from the West Bank The Oxford English Dictionary, 138

137 contiguity has 139 The position The n raise and already been met. Presumably therefore, the meaning the therefore,Presumably met. been already has contiguity for demand a proximity close are in already Strip Gaza and Bank West the that fact the Given Bank. West the and Strip Gaza the between proximity satisfactory be close merely was there if State Palestinian would future a for it adopted, “close definition is dictionary contiguity contact.” actual of without proximity, definition relevant third The link connecting thetwo. territorial of sort some be would separate, territorially Westarethe Bank and Strip Gaza the factthat the given then adopted, be PalestinianfutureState, required the forbe definition would what dictionary second) (or first the should Presumably, one. will as analyzed be therefore and similar clearly are they meanings, two separate as listed are these While contact.” in thing “a or “having no interstices or breaks, having its parts in in parts its having breaks, or interstices Continuous no “having in continuous. defined word as the define must one or continuous whole.” “a connected as continuity defines dictionary this things material to reference With continuous.” being Dictionary with of in employed defined that As continuity.’ ‘territorial frequently is conflict also Israeli-Palestinian the is to reference that phrase A 2. ‘Territorial Continuity’ being inphysical contact. or touching of that is contiguity territorial phrase the to attached be to meaning legal the that conclusion the a along or arecontiguous.” Oklahoma and point a at boundary, or “touching adjoining.” The example given is as that “Texas defined further is contiguous.” being of condition or state “the means contiguity lexicon, legal this to According by supported is assessment This some sort. of in link territorial actual being an for calling or contact, physical touching of that is phrase contiguity’ the ‘territorial to attach passage safe of advocates that continuity means “the state or quality of of quality or state “the means continuity h Ofr Egih Dictionary English Oxford The 143 o nesad hs definition, this understand To 142 Black’s Law Dictionary Black’sLaw This clearlysupports This 140 The Oxford English English Oxford The ee hs third this Were 141 Contiguous means means .

page25 page26 between theWest BankandtheGazaStrip. connection physical of sort requiresome to seems also together.”linked or fastened “conjoined, means connected.” being of degree, or in Dictionary English defined as Connectivity, connectivity. is Israel that the of territorialGaza Strip and from West made Bank benefit have policymakers that demand final A 3. ‘Territorial Connectivity’ in WestBank. the and improperly Strip Gaza the with used connection being is sense, legal its in the term, that suggests it as interesting to is This reference statehood. of no requirement a as makes continuity or state a law of continuity international of field the country.” a of existence the affect not do -- occupation military a during taken measures and territory, country’s a of extent the and forms governmental in changes as well as -- country a principle within “the revolutions and as upheavals that law, international of field the in used preferred. in offered Dictionary Law definition the by supported not ‘continuity’ is term the of understanding this of However, sort Bank. some West Israel and Strip Gaza is the between of link continuity’ territorial demanded ‘territorial term is the what by that suggests definition with.” mass one forming and joined to, continuously unbroken, connected, connection, immediate State Condoleezza Rice. the objectives ofSecretary of phrase, invented to serve might beanewly coined territorial connectivity it appears thattheterm Law Dictionary by is notdefined Territorial connectivity 145 hs ento f‘otniy sue in used as ‘continuity’ of definition This Black’s Law Dictionary Law Black’s , which in the authors’ opinion is to be be to is opinion authors’ the in which , , means “the characteristic, or order, or characteristic, “the means , . Therefore Black’s 146 dfie h em as term, the defines once i turn in Connected 148 h Oxford The 144 147 Black’s This This This lie ta te ap ai ofr a “es hn a than “less was offer David Camp the that claimed 2000. in negotiations David Camp failed the at offer Barak’s Ehud Minister Prime then of criticism his in waters the muddied Strip Arafat Gaza Bank. West the the and between a sort some for of call link to territorial used was ‘contiguity’ term the Initially Prominent Political Leaders andDiplomats C. Variable Recent UsageofTerms by the U.N. and Russia), and EU U.N. US, the of (comprised Quartet Ariel Sharon, Condoleezza Rice, the European Union, the Minister Prime Israeli then include below, examined be will views whose players, These players. political the by ascribed meanings the considerto normal is it Bank, terms, three these Westthe and Strip Gaza applythe theytoparticularly as of nature ambiguous the Given of the map he was offered, his demand has reverberated misrepresentation deceitful Arafat’s and analogy faulty territorial the demanded Despite areas. Palestinian and the between contiguity history analogy African erroneous South his to on built Arafat this, Despite and Gaza…” WestBank the both in contiguity and integrity territorial been have would There surrounded. or isolated been have been no cantons. Palestinian areas would not have percent of the territory in Palestinian hands, there would canardthe offeredwas he that BantustansYet … 97 with Nonetheless,Israel.to behind Arafathide continue[d]to not but state their to refugees Palestinian of return of right unlimited the with Valley;and Jordan the Forcein internationalpresencean IsraeliDefensethe place of in place of the Haram al-Sharif, the Noble Sanctuary); with East Arab Jerusalem as the Capital of that state (including the holy with Jerusalem; and Gaza Bank, West the of percent 97 over territory with State, Palestinian a in resulted have would that deal a offered -- Palestinians the was to what admitted honestly never “...Arafat stated: Clinton, Bill and Bush H.W. George Presidents under Negotiator Chief and Advisor East Middle Ross, Dennis negotiations. David Camp the at present were Bantustan.” 151 150

This claim is not supported by others who 149 Arafat the Quartet, which are similar to the American approach, of declarations the between shifts Union European the of approach The understand. to difficult misleadingand be can and manner uniform a in used arenot terms the state of scattered territories will not work.” help ensure that a new Palestinian State is truly viable. A take must no actions and that prejudice settlement a final Bank. She has stated more cryptically, “Israel must also West the within continuity or connectivity, contiguity, of West the and Bank.” Gaza to between “committed connectivity is US territorial the that saying as 2005 July in Bank. West the within contiguity and Gaza” to “connectivity for calls Quartet’s September 20, 2005, he stated the U.N.’s support for the of statement Annan’s Kofi In connectivity.territorial -- two the between passage a for call to coined been has term new a Bank, West the and Strip Gaza the between different context, a andwhile still employed withreference in to alink used been has term the recently, More Samaria andeconomic viability.” and Judea in contiguityterritorial with PalestinianState WestBank.” the in contiguity with viable truly be must State Forexample, Quartetstatedthe newPalestinian“a that, Bank. West the within contiguity for call his up taking events, of exposition his believing many, with worldwide required ofIsrael. uncertain whatwould be usage. Ittherefore remains no consensus asto their meaning, andcertainly any understanding oftheir these terms have little if concern thatthosewhouse the terms inissue raises This divergent usageof 155 152 But Rice has to date made no express mention democratic “[a] of spoke Sharon Ariel Even 154 Condoleezza Rice was quoted was Rice Condoleezza 153 156 Therefore, the West BankandGaza could take multiple forms. between passage safe a of implementation actual the unclear, yet as passage safe of characteristics the With Passage D. Suggestions for theImplementation ofSafe within whichitismentionedare still binding. agreements the whether or passage, safe term the of meaning the to given been considerationhas any littleif been used as shorthand for this proposed link. However, of such a link. It appears as if the term ‘safe passage’ has toformquestionsas the Bank, arise characteristics and West the and Strip Gaza the between link territorial of If, however, the phrases used do indeed require some sort territorial contiguity ismentionedinageneral sense. term the which in forums other in declarations the and not realistic. suggestions are encouragingly innovative, but practically dollars. billion 21 approximatelycost and long 31miles ran 1994, in built France, and Kingdom United the connecting Chunnel the comparison, By tunnels. and tunnel is a expensive of most highway and world’slongest the of one form as stand a the in such be If would it completed, prohibitive. be likely would might costpresentconstructionthe of but fewer highway, risks security subterranean a alternative, Another to highway this drop terrorists orweapons besidetheroad. on traveling vehicles for difficult be not highway would leave unresolved security this threats; it necessary, would construction prolonged and expensive cost dollars. million would 200 approximately project of kind this that estimated time, the Barak At cable. communication a and pipe water a line, railway a lanes, four of consist would that and areas,two the connect would that highway a of building the proposed Barak Ehud Minister Prime an Israeli then or territory Palestinian1999 in Indeed, way. of right recognizedinternationally deemed be could areas. two This the connect would that highway secureelevated a of building the is alternative suggested One 157 In addition to the to addition In 158 Such

page27 page28 taxesand duties on the cargo transported, for liablethe location of be will who determine to which in manner a requirements, vehicles,an for approach to of the certification conditions license driver include basic These movement.cross-border establish must agreement an however, operating, begin can passage safe any Before the agreement must necessarily address. issues of array likelyagreementthe givenwill take time an such of negotiation The concerns. security Israel’s addresses that agreement bilateral a of form the take should passage such of re-establishment The future. the in re-established be will passage such that suggest Palestinian State and the demand unfetteredfor territorial contiguity this future caused a of probability The terminated. be to movement Intifada the of outbreak the prior to the second Intifada. Security concerns following Bank World operated convoys 2005, the September in by Team Technical prepared paper a to According An Israeli manexamines the missile damageto hishomeinthesouthern Israeli cityofSderot. (APPress Photo) 159 could require information concerning the identity of the of identity the concerningrequire information could one addition In goods. locationsdifferentforof or types differentchannels of use the and crossingpoints, the at inspection layered a strategy,advanceinformationconcerningcargo arriving types, by cargo be of could separation there a goods, of transfer the to regard with ensure example, For passage. the simultaneously of viability commercial the and requirements security Israel’ssatisfy will passage of form any tokeyelements free the and side Palestinianmovementof passengers, and certaingoods Israeli the on standards security requiredbetween tension be to appears there Although including weapons and other dangerous objects. transit,inmoved becannot thatgoods thoselistfurther available to the vehicle within Israel. The agreement must the crossing points that the driver may use, and the routes n te ag big rnpre, eal concerning details transported, being cargo the and vehicle the both of characteristics physical the driver, 160 on sterile buses. Phase Two involves the movement of movement the involvesTwo Phase buses. sterile on Three. Phase One involves the movement of passengers security related complexity, through Phase One to Phase convoys, of which there are three involve types, which would increase in approach phased The implemented. be to have would approach phased a Bank, World suggested the by as Indeed, simultaneously. be implemented to goods and civilians both for movement free feasible for not is it situation, security current the Indeed, Given Territories. civilians. Palestinianfor provided be Palestinianalso must passage two the between transferred be to passage.are that goods only not such is it However, any of requirements general the Bank, and West the and Strip Gaza the between goods of movement the on placed been has emphasis now, Until the border into Israel. cross driver and truck, cargo, the wherecomplex most will need to be employed. The inspection process will be the border into Israel, then a complex inspection process However, should irrelevant.part of the transportation system cross be will system the then Israel, the into border cross it of part no should system, transportation the for As inspection. the the cargo, detailed and complex the more is diverse more the while inspection; the complex less the cargo, the homogenous more the cargo, the to and respect With cargo system. the transportation the of nature the on depend will process inspection the of complexity the crossingborder any At activity ofthevehicle since itslast border crossing. of history a and cargo, the and vehicle the of ownership equipment and proceedings. be inspected bymodern review. Travelers should and shouldbesubjectto on transparent criteria passages shouldbebased person to make useofthe Arefusal to allow a 162 164 161 25 personal vehicles. The convoys should be organized be should convoys The vehicles. personal 25 and trucks, fifteen buses, five be should thereexample, For considerations. security with accordance in limited during daily,schedules. The number of vehicles per convoy should be published operate fixed, on operate should should and hours, daylight convoys of number sufficient A traffic. heavy with fromareas and areas up away built be should routes The Bank. West central and southern routesnorthern, the with connectingGaza three on operate all will convoys The convoys. of forms these of all to factors common several be would There between theparties. to test the infrastructure, and hopefully build confidence time allow would and experience provide would phase Each vehicles. passenger Palestinian of movement the involvesThree Phase Finally, trucks. cargoPalestinian pcal dsgae Irei ue o dsgae and pre-checked Palestinian busesparked inIsrael. designated or buses Israeli designated specially either are that buses dedicated using convoys by sterile for provided be could civilians of passage Initially, and securityclearance. convoysthe of use personsmaking require valididentity All radios. and GPS using monitored movement their have and firm, security Israeli private a by escorted and traveler identity cards. identity traveler frequent with businessmen and officials for established be should service priority A passengers. proposed the and vehicle the both on information provide must drivers The screening. security and notice advanced of basis the on and times scheduled at operate should passage the then is, it If 163 183

page29 page30 use the convoy on a daily basis in each direction. an routes,of mix optimum estimatedan people2,100 could with and convoy; each in traveling capacity people, sixty a of having buses, five With route. northern the on hours six and route,central the on hours and-a-half restfour- route, southern the on takehours approximatelythree would driver trip round a unloading, reloading, for time for and time, minutes forty-five of time Assuming that such bus convoys would have a turnaround which could minimizedelays. that frequent suggestion travelers be issued with frequent traveler a cards therefore is there and consuming, to be checked. This may not only be costly, but also time needs which well, as luggage their but passengersonly not is it that considermust one Indeed, extensive. be to need may check security the thus and fallacy, technical a is this above discussed as However, Israel. in alight not will passengers the as extensive, too be not should Bank, World the to according search, The border. the at searched and travel, to permission granted be then Passengersmakeshould advance reservations, will and those that the PA or the GOI deem to be security risks. before traveling. Permission to travel could be denied to fact,In passengersall receiveshould clearancesecurity border. the at time first the for occur not should checks be standardsminimized. side either on will questionable performance officials’ of possibility security, the and of enhanced control the for private such firms engaging By PA. the and Government (GOI) Israel the of to acceptable are who contractors, Security checks should be placed in the hands of private minimal securitychecks. require only would convoys such whether questionable is it acceptable, be may convoys bus sterile of idea the while Thus, complete. is fence security the until least at -- Israel into entry effectively is Bank West entry the into that fact important the is overlooked has Bank route. en while buses the leave to possible be not will it that and territory, Israeli remainwill in buses the factthat propositionthe this on bases Bank World The security.for need the minimize The use of such buses will, according to the World Bank, 165 oee wa te World the what However 168 166 Further, security 169 While 167

h Ws Bn. hs s oiae b a North-South a by dominated is This to of Bank. topography West key the the in the lie could that statehood concluded Palestinian Corporation Rand The clearly meetcurrent demand. wouldconvoys such demand, maximal a perhaps is this h riwy ie ol epo 1000 o 160,000 to 100,000 employ period. Palestinians year per year over would a five line railway the railway, toll road, and privately funded housing alongside the justconstruction of theFirst, passage.safe of form However, there are other factors that offer support to this Strip andaproposed Gazainternational airport. approximately for 70 miles to connect with cities in the Gaza run and desert Negev the through slip like a fishhook then and ridges; Bank West the along miles 70 for run would railway the so, Todo Strip. Gaza and Bank West links between cities in the West transportation Bank, but would link the rapid offer only not would railway The and water. line of lines for electricity, natural gas, communications, ridge the along development further encourage would posits, corporation the This, ridgeline. the along road toll and railroad a of construction the of consist would new project running parallel to the ridgeline. The project major a of creation the to itself lends which land, the of argues that one can combine this need with the topography the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The Rand Corporation between and WestBank, the within links transportation sustainability requires the creation of rapid North-South developmentand economicrecognizes Corporation that Westthe Rand divides The which Bank. Ridge, Mountain released in2005. Corporation inareport was suggested bytheRand This form ofsafe passage Strip andtheWest Bank. is arailway linkingtheGaza An alternative to busconvoys 170 171 trucksthat could use the passage on adaily basis. What cargo movement is not attractive for the large number of back-to-back modernized even of option the However, minimizes the risk of damage to the cargo. therefore and cargo, the of handling direct eliminates also This equipment. mechanized using platformlevel a across transfer coordinated a involves This docking. cross- called process a of use the by made more efficient, and improved, be can movement cargo Back-to-back of cargo on the ground during transfer. placementthe resultof a cargo as the to damagecause Thisprocess laboris intensive, timeconsuming, andcan other.the to one fromthegoodsphysical transfer theof back-to-back,and trucks two ofinvolvespositioning the transferof goods from one truck to another, and literally mode of cargo transfer. This is generally understood as the Bank, makes use of back-to-back cargo movement as the Palestinian areas, and even at checkpoints within the Westthe and Israel between pointcrossing everypresent, At for goods. secondphase of the World Bank outline -- truck convoys the to move could one problems, these any without that operate Assuming areas. two the convoy connecting line bus railway a a or future Strip, Gaza either and Bank West the a connecting have step, could first State a Palestinian as that appear would it Thus, and Israelis both Palestinians. from support qualified received has andpossibly most importantly, Finally,thisform safeof passage State. Palestinian future the of sustainability and viability commercial the surrounding concerns the ninety of minutes. This is an important consideration given all almost link would theprimary cities ofGaza andthe West Bank injust over and convoys more bus be than would efficient railway the Second, consideration. crucial a is territories, the in high so unemployment of level the with This, passage. safe of form this against heavily weigh costs enormous These dollars. billion six approximatelybe will costtotal railcars. The of cost the includesapproximatelyThis dollars.cost U.S. billion 3.3 will railway the of section main the of constructionThe 172 This marks a major step forward. 173

174

Palestinians is of a differentaPalestinians natureofentirely. is PA, Forthe the by envisioneddoor-to-doormovementHowever, the security Israel’s considerations. of light in even acceptable be could while en route. cargoof storage requiretheeven may andtransport, of modes different on movements of sequence a involve may movementcargo The journey. entire the forcargo the responsibilityforproviderassumesservice logistics oftenassociated with singlea transaction where singlea involves the intact movement of a particular cargo,This and is destination. of point its to origin of point its from Door-to-doorcargo movement isthe movement ofcargo process of cargo movement called door-to-door. suggestedis placein thisoftypecargo of movement a is cnig qimn i nt vial. uh physical Such costly,and consumingand time both be will inspections available. not is equipment scanning satisfactorypresent at requiredas be will trucks the of inspections physical Initially trucks. maximumﬁfteen of a of consistconvoys that Bank World the by suggested is cargomovementtakes,it thatform Regardless the of door movement. door-toof understanding international the implement demand of door-to-door movement. Israel could at most in the near future Israel cannot accede to the Palestinian to initiate discussions on this basis, it is clear that at least timereplace back-to-back movement, and over while it has agreed will movement door-to-door that accepted environment. security current the not in not does least at Palestinians -- requirements Israel’s security satisfy the door-to-door by the envisaged Bank, movement World the by concluded As concept of door-to-door cargo movement. international the by envisaged is what beyond is which movement of the vehicle. This is akin to a right of transit, describes not just the movement of the cargo, but also the destination. Under this deﬁnition,door-to-doormovement singlea overhaulofinpoint its origintofrom ofpoint its concepttherefers movementcargo, theof tointact,and 175 178 Such a form of door-to-door movement 177 hl Ire has Israel While 176

page31 page32 e ocre wt te odoties f h vehicle, the of roadworthiness the with concerned be will first The stages. two involve will clearanceVehicle the future berequired ofIsrael. their territory. Some such similar arrangement could in through running passage’ ‘Jewish a want not did who clearly is accepted by the Jewish Agency but rejected by the Arabs it but practicable.” artificial, seem may arrangement This belt. this on stationed be could police Mandatory necessary,If south. the totown Jewishnascent the and created by the contiguity of Jaffa with Tel Aviv to the north insoluble, be to said problem,sometimes solvethe also Commission asserted that The an open State. travel corridor Jewish “would the of parts the connect would that corridortravel of sort recommendedCommissionsome Peel the Therefore non-contiguous. been have would State Jewish the recommendation, this Under State. Jewish a and State PalestinianArab a -- states two into Palestine mandatory of partition the suggested which 1937 (British Mandatory Government) Peel Commission, Such a system is reminiscent of a recommendation of the escort theconvoys. either simply check the convoys, or could both check and be managed by coulda private which Israeli security firm, vehiclepassenger of convoysaspect should security the convoys, bus with As check. security a undergo to have using pose the greatest security challenge, as each vehicle will convoys operational, are Palestinian passenger vehicles can be introduced. convoys These bus Once delays andwaitingtime. driver, aboard. cargo the and vehicle, about information provide to have would one reservation a make to where system, reservation advanced an be should there expansion an such With drivers. and companies trucking all to expanded be eventually could it this From drivers. pre-cleared and only, companies trucking established well to available time. waiting minimize to as so trucks, be smaller than fifteen it is therefore suggested that initially the convoys should 179 ned iiily h cnos ol b made be could convoys the initially Indeed, 182 Ti ragmn,ee fatfiil was artificial, if even arrangement, This 181 hs o cud minimize could too This 180

E. Questions ofSafe Passage an essential consideration. under whose sovereignty of the mode of passage will fall is question The costs. security financial the Israel’sand considerations on depend likely will takes passage the form Whatever railroad. a others yet and highway, elevated a an others of highway, ordinary form an others the tunnel, take should it that argue Some point. technicala takeis will passage the formthat actual The the passage. use to allowed be car a will stages both of completion upon Only check. security physical a be also will there requirements. Once a vehicle passes through this stage, vehiclethe whether Israelivehicleand meets safetyand of theterritorial sea. subsoil and seabed the and land the to adjacent sea the to also but territory, landed state’s the to respect with territory. state’s a over rights plenary of existence the of terms in rather but sovereignty not in terms of the independence of the state, concerned. state the of consent special by except indefeasible are rights These state’s competence.a legal -- state the to reference to the normal complement of rights that attach a as used also is It state. the of personality legal the of description a as used only not is Territorialsovereignty sovereignty thatwe are concerned. example, the seas and outer space). sovereignty;forstate under placed being of capable not and population world the to belonging land (communal sovereigntycontrol)has or yetand as one no which over but states by acquisition to susceptible territories), mandated any example,(for own its of status a of has and states or state sovereignty the to subject not is that territory sovereignty, territorial are These regime. territorial of types fourrecognizes law international terms spatial In 1. Sovereignty 186 184 hs rfso rel endterritorial ProfessorThus, Brierly defined 188 187 e nullius res uh ihs pl primarily apply rights Such 185 trioy ht is that (territory It is with territorial res communisres should serioussecuritythreats arise. passage the to close and passage Israel the of use allow the monitor would passage Israeli the over concerns. sovereignty security Israel’s justifies terrorists Rafah crossing by the Palestinians to smuggle arms and recentlyopened the of use The concern.legitimate and primary a is security Israel, For concerns. security to due passage the closingconstantly by StatePalestinian future the choke will Israel that fears allay would and a state, future their go of status the would enhancing to way sovereignty long such Palestinians, the For passage. the over sovereignty demand Israelis the and sovereignty over the safe passage. Both the Palestinians Strip and West Bank, questions arise as to who will have Gaza the connecting corridor future a of context the In system onto amodernworld order ischallenging. to connected closely is contemporary law life, and to try and overlay an that ancient legal is this from arises that difficulty The property. of acquisition with dealing rules Roman the from descended directly are thereof In fact, even the modes of acquiring territory and control ownership. of concept Roman-law the upon based and from derived are sovereignty territorial regardingrules international the Indeed, ownership. of that to akin is authority of a particular individual. which under territory is deemed to belong in the hands conditionsand under the legal and factual the both to The essence of territorial sovereignty is title. Title relates servitudes. international of concept the of basis the on Israel, be to state sovereign the requires law international that appear would It sovereignty. enjoy can one only sovereignty, demand may parties both While 189 The concept of title 190 pcfial rae ytesae ocre ri must it or concerned states the by created specifically be either must existenceit into come to servitude a For would retain sovereignty over thepassage. created,internationallegalunder then principles, Israel passage between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank to be law, remains vested in the servient state. Roman in ownership like territory, the overSovereignty concerned from the servient state to the dominant state. international servitude does not transfer an sovereignty over of the territory existence The Israel. of State the over State Palestinian the by enjoyed of servitude or ‘right way’ a a as such construed as be passage, eventually could safe passage of issue the to relevant is right legalwhich fall short of sovereignty. The concept of of servitudes states, other type of territory the over states by exercisable a are servitudes International they were created, by a renunciation by the servient state servient the by renunciation a by created, were they tacit renunciation on the part of the power in whose or interest express by concerned, states the between agreement by state, dominant the and servient the of terminated merger be the by may Servitudes terminated. be can they Although servitudes are in principle intended to last forever, special agreement between thestates. by created formally be must it exist, to passage a such providedForbeforeforwas passage 1967. such no that effectively what a call for safe passage amounts to, given lines that existed prior to the Six Day War of 1967. This is the their maximalist why demands -- return to the 1949 to armistice as provided as viewed is Palestinianswhat aremoreentitledthan to be to needs justification some areas. two the between link customary a of existence the on based be cannot link a Therefore,such fortwo. calling the claims control. There was no territorial link of any sort between Egyptian under fell Gaza fell and control, Bank Jordanian under West The non-contiguous. were Gaza and WestBank the 1967 to prior ProfessorDershowitz, Alan by emphasized as fact, In exist. to said be actually can passage customary such no passage, safe Palestinian concerned. states havelong existed informally customthe of part as the of 193 n at gvn hs i apas s if as appears it this, given fact, In 192 ih eeec t te usin of question the to reference With 191 Thus, were a

page33 page34 ipa fwaoscpue n foddfo h L’ aieAsi.(oenetPesOffice) Press (Government ship. A Karine PLO’s the from Display ofweapons captured andoffloaded Missiles discovered andcaptured onthePLO’s KarineAship.(Government Press Office) sovereignty over thepassage. enjoy not would state, dominant the being Palestinians, the because Bank West the and Gaza between passage of territory the state. use another to right limited a is enjoys state dominant the that sovereignty.All state) with dominant (the associated principles legal servitudes, a servitude does not grant the holder thereof the to According safe passage. of legitimatelyuse couldIsrael the terminatebasis, this On thereof.renunciation tacit a least the at or agreement the constitutewould breachsmuggling a such passage, then of example, for would, providesmuggledbe couldalongroutenot arms the that of and concerns, security Israel’s to relate would agreement the of aspect essential an Since passage. such of safe use the terminate on could Israel agreement passage, the breach Palestinians the should Alternatively, passage. the of terms the renounce tacitly or expressly created) be may passage the interest whose in power (the Palestinians the should use its terminate to Westthe and Strip Gaza right the Israelhavewoulda Bank, because ofitsbreach. servitude the creatingtreaty the of termination by or limit, time a of expiry by state, dominant the by accepted is that into Israel. control thecrossing points is thequestion ofwho will equally ifnotmore important Israel’s security. Whatis protect to but notsufficient perspective thisisessential, exclusively. From asecurity control theactualpassage meaning thatIsrael would remain vested inIsrael, Such sovereignty would 195 hs s ot eeat o h ie o a of idea the to relevant most is This 194 Withreference to passage between ay errs atcs ht ae curd t h Erez the at occurred have that attacks terrorist the many from clear is This the in attacks. decrease attempted of a number to even or points, crossing attacks the of at cessation a to lead not will control Israeli be through Israeli control ofthecrossings. to seems anarchy such avoid to way only the Mission, Border European unarmed the of ineffectiveness and the PA the of disinterest apparent the Given Bank. crossing at Westthe disorderand Israel or Israel, and Gaza between points such of risk the countenance cannot Israel point. crossing Rafah the characterizes now that chaos the by recently accentuated been has necessity This terrorists. and arms of smuggling the preventand detect to as so passage safe accessthe to It is essential that Israel control the crossing points used 2. Control ofCrossing Points a necessity. make Israeli control of the ‘safe passage’crossing points wide range of targets could be vulnerable. These factors passage of forbidden cargo or persons. Once in Israel, a the enable to them causing inspections, the conducting from such attacks. This disregard could intimidate those refrain not do perpetrators the salaries, their Palestinianworkers cost which closures other in result among and victims Palestinians claim often attacks such soldiers. Israeli on and fire grenades, opened hurled device, explosive an terminal, activated crossing Erez the infiltrated terrorist a 2005, 5, January On Israel. and Gaza between point crossing 196 ept te at that fact the Despite

page35 page36 in theGazaStrip. held on January 25, 2006 and their subsequent authority Palestinianthe Hamas’legislativein electionsby victory aggravated was terrorism of threat This passage. safe of creation the with increase to likely only is terrorism citizens, but also to the very existence of the State. Such Israeli of lives the to only not threat a Terrorismposes take the steps necessary to meet this responsibility.” securityandpublic order” andgranted “all thepowers to andSettlements, Israelisfor the purpose of of securitysafeguarding overall their internal for responsibility “the this right was recognized and enshrined: Israel was given Palestinians,the itsAgreements with Olso the of In protection citizens. the to also but state, the of defense the toextends only not right This self-defense. to right its continuallyis assertmustIsrael that right basic The of otherstates. affairs internal the in intervening not of and faith, good resortingtreatycarryingnot out of in war, toobligations The basic duties that have been emphasized are those of self-preservation. and self-defense of and jurisdiction, those of independence and equality of states, of territorial areexpressedfrequently most rights basic The states. of duties and rights fundamental) (or basic so-called of and lists formulate to purported conferences, have bodies, international international writers, Numerous A. Israel’s RighttoSelf-Defense Considerations III. Israel’s Security Palestine.” of Allahover every inchof calls for raising “thebanner very great andserious,” struggle against theJews is statements suchas“[o]ur The HamasCharter contains 197

199 198

efdfne sal ed mr ta svriny over sovereignty than more needs Israel self-defense of right exerciseits to order in that implied Gilad Amos General IDF that reality, this facing surprising, not is It defense becomes even more essential. self- of right inherent Israel’s reality political current this In changed. not has stance Hamas’ elections, the aside. terror would never agree to recognize theState ofIsrael orput situation” “no-win ascendancy a possible as their described officials security him.’” kill and come me, behind Jew a is there Abdulla, O Muslims, O say, will Jew the treeswill and stones The trees. and stones behind hide when Jews, the fight Muslims until about come not will Judgment of Day ‘[t]he said: has … Allah Prophet “[t]he that stating line the is concern more Of that state. of independence political the impair to implication or case the in of Justice of Court International the by clarified as always, almost and affected, state particular the of the intervention, of interventiongenerally will againstmustthe be speaking realm prohibited the within fall To suggestion. diplomatic or mediation than stronger than less much interference,mereand than more aggression but something as understood is prohibited so is that intervention The another. of affairs the in state one by intervention forbids generally law International not itsintended meaning. is this fact in that suggests duty this of understanding proper a states, other duty of affairs the the in intervene from to not implied be first to seem at might While this glance State. Palestinian future the -- state another of affairs the in the interfere of will points control crossing this that argue might some However, assertion. Gilad’s support to appears law International ensuring thatsuchstandards are reliably implemented. and them, with carry can they what passage, safe the use can who determining by defend citizens, effectively her and Israel herself can control such with Only crossingthe providethat points access topassage. such requiresalso controloverShe passage.futuresafe any Nicaragua Nicaragua v. United States of America 203

202 Today, more than fourteen months after months fourteen than Today,more 200 Before Hamas’ electoral victory, electoralHamas’ Before 201 n asre ta Hamas that asserted and , serving by design these exceptions to the duty. of basis the on points crossing the control could Israel intervention, prohibited of form a as construed if even Thus, serve. controlwould such that purpose exact the is which -- country relevant the within citizens protect to right the to extend would abroad citizens protect to right the surely also, but self-defense, of basis the on “self-defense.” and abroad”citizens its of safetypersonal the interests,and relevant The exceptions intervention. are those enshrined “to protect of the rights and right legitimate a has state a exceptions these Under duty. the to exceptions principal the into fall would control such that appear was points crossing would it intervention, the prohibited of form a as construed of control Israel’s if Even Further, such control would not be implemented by force. concerns. security Israel’s consideration legitimate into Israelis,Palestinianstakingthethe and both bydecided be to needs matter freely. The itself by decide to State Palestinian the for matter a not is points crossing the of control The intervention. deemed be would points crossing the of Israel’s control that appear not does It elected the speaking notintervention. overturn strictly is this of short falls that toAnything government). attempting movements undergroundto support of provisionexample,force (for must do so by methods of coercion, especially the use of and if it involves interference in regard to this freedom, it political system or formulation of its own foreign policy), own its of choice example, make(for freely itself by decisions to permitted is state each which on to as impinge matters both must it realm prohibited the within fall to another of affairs the in state one by intervention an for that say to on went Court The Justice. of Court International the of holding further the by supported is conclusion This duty. international this by expressed prohibition the of realm the within fall not does state, another of affairs the in intervention as seen be could what and control, such basis, this On independence. Palestine’spolitical implication or design by impair not Israel’scontrolcrossingcontrolsuch the does points, of oppose may State Palestinian future the while Clearly, 205 o ol cud sal intervene Israel could only Not 204

passage. This is in addition to her retention of sovereignty to safe the accessallowto that crossingpoints controlthe entitled arguably is Israel state, another of the affairs in intervene to not duty the to exceptions the and self-defense, to Israel’s right of basis the Therefore,on ol ufili’ eesv iso sn conventional a using mission defensive it’s fulfill could ForcesDefense Israeli the attack, under come to Israel forclaim defensible borders. Borders, were which, with Israel’sof heart the at lies that warfareconventional of threat this is it Traditionally, State. Jewish the against a attack an by launch to Syria exploited or Iran as be such state hostile easily could distances trifling These Gaza StripandAshkelon. the between lie miles seven and Beersheba, and WestBank the separate miles ten Aviv, Tel and Bank West the separate miles eleven Netanya, and Bank West the separate miles nine Haifa, and Bank West the separate miles Twenty-one negligible. are lines armistice 1967 distances between Israeli population centers and the pre- size of the King Ranch near Corpus Christi.” the times six about only is Israelpre-1967 of whole The Airport. Worth Dallas-Ft. of bottom the to top the from the from Mediterranean milesto the old armistice line. That’s less eight than only it’s point narrowest the At eye-opener. an is Israel to visit Texan,a “[f]or that first a American Jewish Committee in May of 2001, the Bush stated to Bush W. George President US by address an In B. Israel’s Needfor Defensible Borders safe passage regime. any of features essential are These passage. the over Bank mountain ridge. territory, suchastheWest certain militarily vital retention ofcontrol over for Israeli securityisthe essential is what satisfied, elements willultimately be Although notallthree 207

206 Indeed the

page37 page38 onay ih h Plsiin niy atad o that so eastward entity Palestinian the with boundary Israel’sto protect shifting Jerusalem. Third, is and finally, perimeter a establishing as well Jerusalem,as and Aviv Telconnecting corridor the of broadening the is second and Jordan, and the Gaza Strip and Egypt respectively. Israeli The controloverexternal the border Westthe between Bank requires first three The borders, satisfied. be defensible should elements have to Israel for Ideally, defensible borders onIsrael. to right a confers tacitly This withdraw. to expected is as Israelfrom territorywhich of amount leavethe tovague so “the” article version, definite the prevailing out leaves the intentionally is which Resolution, the of version English The occupied.” “territories from only but occupied’ territories ‘the from withdrawal for call not does resolution the that note to vital is It added). occupied the “[w]ithdrawal of Israeli armed forces from United the at Nations on settling body the conflict. senior the of statement definitive the 242, Resolution Council Security UN of phrasing the by right a as recognized was borders defensible to claim borders.” defensible militarily provide to order in territory Arab captured some of retention requirethe would Israel view, of point military strictly a “[f]rom that, concluded they when 1967 in War Day the Six after this recognized Staff of Chiefs Joint US The Israeli the which within Defense Forces could regroup andrespond. depth insufficient be would in the center of the country would be exposed, and there infrastructure Strategic satisfied. be would defense of principles two the of neither width, insignificant an such lines, at its narrowest, Israel was nine miles wide. Given and the strategic center of the state. Within the pre- 1967 front the acceptablebetween distancean ensure to and strategic depth to enable defensive forces to be deployed, sufficient state a allow will plan defensive adequate an defense, of principles military universal to According Israel loses theabilityto defend herself. a high probability of success. army or some combination of ground forces, and achieve ntercn oflc te16 a)(emphasis War) 1967 (the recentconflict the in 208 214 Within the pre-1967 lines, 212 The Resolution calls for 211 209 Moreover, the Moreover, 210 territories 213

mountain ridgeaffords hersomelevel ofsecurity. Israeliscenterof the in Israel.of of the ridge could threaten daily life and even mobilization Aviv, and Haifa. Thus, any hostile military force in charge Tel Jerusalem, connecting highways major international and airport Gurion Ben the as such infrastructure, Israeli vital of view a commands ridge mountain south Immediately adjacent security.to the Israeli coastal Israel’splain, the West Bank north- to greatly contributed has Bank West the 1967, in IDF the by capture its Since border between theGazaStripandEgypt. recentlyhas Israel Indeed, relinquished control overthe controlborders.externaloveras such utopian, as some control. militarily vital territory does not end up under Palestinian ute, sals oto o te et ak mountain advanced of smuggling preventtothe her enables Bank ridge West the of control Israel’s Further, effective defense. preparenecessaryto affordtime would thean forIsrael ridge the army, conventional a by attack an preventing not if even Thus, troops.reserve her mobilize to Israel for force to reach the top of the ridge would be sufﬁcient verytakeleast,wouldthe it time hostileof a amount the At attack. ground a to obstacle an be would and steep, the east. It comprises a 4,200 foot ridge that is relatively barrier protecting a Israel’s as coastal plain serves from attacks ridge from mountain Bank West the Moreover, concessions. of Israel’s territorial caution intheproceedings map for Israel to be wipedoffthe from thePresident ofIran development, recent calls may have beensome Moreover, althoughthere 215 Aspects of these elements may be viewed by viewed be may elements these of Aspects 223 reiterate theneedfor 217

216 Israeli control the of h psiiiy f epne ht cs s dtret to deterrent a as acts that response of possibility is the it attack nuclear a of face the in and prevent completely, cannot it but attack, an of impact the limit can defense Missile critical. become and mechanisms control command and systems weapons infrastructure, of dispersal and positioning the missiles, of age the In space. and territory of value the increased actually has the Second Lebanon War of 2006 , the advent of missiles during Israel on attacks Hezbollah by demonstrated As for defensible need borders. the accentuates only technology modern of to be, the opposite is, in fact, true. That is, the existence used they as signiﬁcant defensibleas longerborders no country. the makestechnology modern that argue intosome while Thus, marched troops Allied the when liberated only was Kuwait bombing, Allied of weeks six despite Kuwait, of invasion 1991 Iraq’s in example, For land. occupying troops by conqueredonly are countries damage, cause may attacks whileaerial that shown has Historyfact,contraryimportance.true. In the such is of think that the concept of defensible borders was no longer crossing vast amounts of territory in minutes, one would of capable missiles long-range of era the In disputed. The need for defensible borders has in recent years been Obsolete? Developments MadeDefensible Borders C. Have Technological andPolitical that land.” hold I unless country whole the defend utterlyimpossible…to is it so minutes, two-and-a-half in Jerusalem that aircraftover be to going is ground….An Amman in airport an from high off takes the hold you unless Jerusalem defend to impossible is “[i]t that, admitted Kelly General (Ret.) Lt. U.S. Indeed, forces. hostile by attack to vulnerable herself makes Israel control, Without such ridge. mountain Bank West the of control is verythe leastat that requiredis what for Israeli security centers. population Israeli enemy aircraft from forward positions, before they reach defense systems positioned along the ridge can intercept air Palestinianaddition, toterrorist In weapons groups. 219 218 hrfr i i apparent is it Therefore 220

departure of the Syrian army from Lebanon. However, Lebanon. from army Syrian the of the departure and Iraq, democratize to efforts the respectively, peace treaties of between Israel and Jordan, and Israel and conclusionEgypt the borders are these defensible Among for Israel. for need the doubt some make also East Middle the in developments political Positive until suchtimeasthearmyisfully mobilized. assault, initial an withstand to Forces Defense Israeli weaker numerically a enable will borders Defensible attack. an of hours 48 within only mobilize who troops in Israel, where the majority of Israeli forces are reserve applies particularly case This is. it deterrent a of more the and response effective an of possibility better the attacker,its and itself between statehas a that territory country.morea availableThe to by depth and territory the determined is turn, in This, aggressors. potential Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, in Crawford, Texas. Bush Texas. Crawford, in Sharon, Ariel Minister Prime to made 2005, 11, April on statement a in commitment threats.” of possiblecombination or threat any against itself, by itself, defend to and deter capability Israel’s borders, strengthen and defensible preserve to and and secure including security, Israel’s to commitment steadfast its reiterates States United “[t]he that wrote Bush support. US committed in his April 14, 2004 letter to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, PresidentGeorgeand, US W. recognizedneed Bush this Israel’s continuing needfor defensible borders. indicates this East, Middle the in developmentspolitical Despite territory. Israeli into missiles ﬁre subsequently and revenues oil in dollars of billions with technology military advanced purchase could which Arabia, Saudi Threats region. still exist from countries the such as Syria, Iran, and within countries Arab other with peace at Israelpeaceat Jordan,be and may Egypt with not is she while Further, warheads. nuclear possessing Iran’s of possibility imminent the with so especially is borders The continued necessity for Israel to maintain defensible permanent. guarantees no improvedthe be that will made politicalsituation canbe ﬂuid, very are region the in politics as 222 Defensible borders remain essential. 224 Bush reiteratedthis Bush 221

page39 page40 y h Plsiin lvn i tee ra pir o 1967. to prior areas these in living Palestinians the by need only look at the many attacks that were carried out one security, Israeli for Bank West the and Strip Gaza the of importance real the see to Indeed, context. this of in essential concept more even perhaps, The is, borders Israel. defensible into Bank West the from infiltrate also could weapons transportable easily and available Gaza readily these Terroristscarrying the Bank. West and Strip within from fired being weapons such other or rockets Qassam or rockets Katyusha to given been has consideration any, if imminent little, Too more terrorism. a threat: of exclusion the to Iran, example, for from, threat external an of context the in borders Disproportionate emphasis has been placed on defensible Diminish theThreat ofTerrorism? D. DoesProgress inthePeace Process including state, Jewish secure anddefensible borders.” a as being well and security Israel’sto committed is States United “[t]he that stated Masked Palestinian terrorists usereal rockets andlaunchers to perform atraining exercise for themediainGaza Strip.(APPhoto) 225 nlrto noIre,cnen r asdb the by raised are concerns Israel, into infiltration terrorist of context the in passage safe considering In are presently concerned. monograph this of acts authors the which with of terrorism, of thousands of form the takes which scaleconflict, muddied. somewhat and continuous is conflict low-scale result, clearer much a which is usually shorter, sharper and generally ends with war, full-scalecomparedto as However, casualties. no are there that mean not does low-scale conflict Low-scale and conflict. war full-scale between Staff, of Chief IDF former Haloutz, Dan as distinguish, fact in can One Israel. into infiltration terrorist facilitating by threat this augments only Gaza Strip and Bank West the between link territorial Any h etbihd ot ( hgwy fr xml) and example), entering for Israel in order highway, to carry out an (a attack. Few route realize established the leaving passage, safe the using terrorist a of possibility 226 t s hs otnos low- continuous, this is It assumed that the tunnels are the only method devised method only the are tunnels the that assumed be it lest And today. until daily operate and discovered left for us to wonder how many of these tunnels were not 36. to decreasedsomewhat had number the 2004 the passage of these weapons, were discovered, while in for used presumably Gaza, and Egypt between 44 tunnels of total a 2003 year the during that states website been years. recent in Gaza SA-7 into smuggled have Strella missiles 10 anti-aircraft least shoulder-launched at that believes intelligence the Israeli practice. into ongoing and notorious Egypt a is Strip from Gaza arms of smuggling addition, In is augmented bythecreation ofasafe passage. that Strip Gaza and Bank West the fromthreatterrorist the to panacea a be not will fence security the However Israel. easilyinfiltrate there from and Bank, West the enter passage, directly into Israel. A terrorist can therefore use the safe passage safe constitutes effectively Bank West the into places. many in the process of being constructed, and is incomplete in only Westis fencethe Bank alongimportantly,the most beforecrossedthey throughfence. the terrorists most intercepted has and fence in the due is monitors that IDF the success to but fence the to not this part large Israel, into attempts infiltration around the Gaza Strip the fence has succeeded in blocking defensiblefencea this border.as however,see to While incorrect, be would It Bank. West the of part and Strip Israel, Israel has erected a security fence along the entire Gaza into infiltration terrorist prevent to attempt an moretherea that moresubtleis and complex threat.In the West Bank. from terrorists Israel to infiltrate and make for it more difficult minimize this particular threat, fence around the West Bank may The completion of the security 228 Thus, safe passage from the Gaza Strip Gaza fromthe passagesafe Thus, 229 227 Further,possibly and 230 Indeed, the IDF the Indeed, 231 It is It rm aa Tee nldd n neemnd number undetermined an included These Gaza. from Israel’ssince withdrawalsmuggled been have weapons security service, the Shin Bet, said that large quantities in of discussed as Israel’sIntroduction.Yuvalof the head Diskin, domestic crossing, border Rafiah the of Palestinian control with increased only has of smuggling practice arms the Indeed, abated. have weaponry such effortsacquiretotheir that mean not does this but ship, present possess all of the arms which were on board the PA, the A, Karine Hamas, Islamic Jihad the and other organizations may of not at discovery the of result a As list ofarmamentsontheshipisdisquieting. Gaza. to route intercepteden Israel that missiles Iranian with loaded cargoship a A, Karine infamous the PA under the late Yasser Arafat was itself responsible for to bring weapons into Gaza, it should be recalled that the the largethe chemicalandfuel desalination depots, a plant, as well as station, power Rutenberg the of location the by magnified rocketsAshkelonisstriking of danger The Ashkelon. of Israeli zone industrial the major and Ashdod the of port into Gaza from fired being warheads prospect of rockets with greater range and more powerful the by concernedareIsraelis the Egypt,from smuggled increased in frequency. have attacks Especially rocket with Gaza, the fromweapons being withdrawal Israeli the of Sderot with a population of approximately 35,000. With recentlycoulduntil and onlyreachIsraelicityNegev the Strip Gaza thefrom launched been have daterockets to most thatfact the givenIsrael, on littleimpact had have incidents These Introduction. the in abovediscussed as shelling, mortar and rockets example, for of, by the firing committed terrorism of instances numerous are There with orwithoutthesecuritybarrier. terroristthreat, factin but existentialan threat to Israel, a only not poses Bank West armed heavily A situation. the from unprecedentedyet as an artillery -- WestBank the to Strip Gaza and arms, rockets, of flow free the to door the open could Bank West the and Strip Gaza the of quantities explosives. significant military-grade and missiles anti-tank 305 Strelaof surface-to-airquantity small miles,missiles,a 16.6 of range a with rocketsartillery Grad Soviet-era of 233 ae asg between passage Safe 232 The 234

page41 page42 West Bank via the safe passage. and the smuggling of rockets and such weapons into the passagesafe of possibilityimminent the comparedwith Qassam the range.” extending in succeed will organizations Palestinianthe months coming the in possiblethat very is “It that, Research,Intelligencewarned Military IDF of Additionally, Brigadier General Yossi Kooperwasser, Head the major Israeli port city of range. Ashdod within firing rocketsthat terrorists are currently using, andcould put reach approximately three times farther than the Qassam canmissiles These disengagement. to prior Strip Gaza the into miles eighteen to nine of range a with missiles ten to seven smuggled Fatah that Diskin Director Bet Shin by reports with so especially is This Ashkelon. of Gaza to reach, as mentioned above, the major coastal city fromterrorists enabled has border Israeli the to closer lives.” human and infrastructure to damage “severe causing country, the half to electricity ability provides the which plant, powerAshkelon the down shut had to rockets Qassam accurately, fired if that the told officials MinistryInfrastructure Nationalwreak havoc:could posescapability threatthis a to strategic close installation in explodingthe Ashkelon oneindustrial zone. with The Negev, Western the at fired wererockets Qassam eight 2006, 14, February On and the oil pipeline running to the Red Sea port of Eilat. peace initiatives. of thePalestinian people to on thehistoric responses appear to bethecase based However, this doesnot strategic Israeli interests. population centers and terrorism to theIsraeli eliminates threats of the possibility ofpeace Some mightargue that 238 However, these facts when pale in significance 236 Moreover, being Moreover, Jerusalem Post Jerusalem 235 237

smuggled into the Gaza Strip from Egypt, an unnamed an Egypt, from Strip Gaza the into been smuggled indeed had missiles Grad whether asked When vulnerable civilianpopulation centers. on attacks for not and use, military for intended clearly diameter.in caliber) (122-mm in 4.80 are BM-21, as known also missiles, The miles. 15 from Egypt. These missiles have a range of approximately manufactured Grad missiles Russian- smuggled possessinto the they Gaza Strip that claim groups the Further, miles. 9.3 of range a rocketwith a developed has it that said groups the of one and past, the in than cities and long- have towns Israeli more to reaching of capable missiles, claimed range They Israel. on attacks their Mazen, Abu President PA of faction Fatah mainstream the to belongs which of one Indeed, on December 26, 2005, three Palestinian groups, weapons that Palestinians could possess in the future. the those in possess could as Palestinians that weapons well as possess currently Palestinians the that weaponry of kind the of knowledge basic a have to To appreciate the threat that will be posed, it is important raises that isagreed to bytheparties. and borders, passage safe defensible future any over concerns security serious for need the confirms This range. rocket increased and technology improved by enhanced are posed threats the fact, In future. near augmented. be the in subside will threats these that will appear not does It Bank West the from rockets of firing creationthe safeof passage, threatthe but the by posed Thus, not only will the threat of smuggling be increased by reach additionalIsraeli populationcenters. improvedweaponry would enable Palestinians in the The West Bank to Bank. West the to Strip Gaza the from that they will be smuggled via the proposed safe passage probability the increases Egypt from Gaza into weapons commitments to peace. Further, the importation of such State’sPalestinian future the for poorly bodes crossing the out commitments they rule made in the negotiations on the Rafah not Egypt. did he from smuggled been had weapons such that possibility said official Palestinian 241 This failure on the part of the PA to meet the meet to PA the of part the on failure This 239 hetnd o continue to threatened 240 These missiles weremissiles These n nitet ldi erhb ititcut that court, district Beersheba a in filed indictment an in 2006 2, January Monday, on revealed Israel Indeed, Aviv. Tel with Jerusalem linking highway 443 route the aroundareas and Qassam, a by struck be example, for could, pass, travelers international all nearly which strategic Israel’s interests. to The Ben Gurion International Airport, through posed be would threats serious Beersheva. and Gat Kiryat TelAviv,Netanya, and Jerusalem. Katyushas could be used to Sabba attack Afula, Kfar attack to used be could Qassams targets. that most of the means major Israeli weaponry population centers such are potential with armed Bank West A Weapons available include: Grad Missiles (BM21) RPGs Anti-Tank Rockets Mortars Surface-to-Air Missile Strela 2:Low- Altitude Surface-to-Air Missile Sakr Eye: Low- Altitude Katyusha Rockets Qassam 3 Weapon Russia Soviet Union Russia Russia Russia Territories Palestinian Source Range 18.6 miles 0.19miles 0.16miles 0.5-2.1miles 2.73miles 3miles 6.2miles 245 Further, 246 2.83in 28.35 in 5.20in 6.69in Width 4.80 in 3.35in 2.36in 3.19in

of past andpresent non-contiguous states. needs to consider the one meaning of viability, and question,examples this answer To leaders? international by demanded often so is non-contiguousas viable, be StatePalestinian a such would However, the and Bank. West Gaza between passage safe any of creation the against militate to seem smuggling, weapons and attacks rocket include which concerns, security These against theDimona nuclear reactor wasfoiled. Brigade Martyr’s Aksa Fatah’sAl by attempt terrorist a 20.17 lbs 33.07 lbs 92.59 lbs 198.42 lbs Weight 40.57 lbs 17.42 lbs 11 lbs 93-97 lbs 48.50 lbs 22-44 lbs Explosives Weight of 4.63 lbs 15.43 lbs 15 lbs contact and glazefuzing fragmentation with 2.57 lbsHEsmooth contact andglazefuzing fragmentation with 2.2 lbsplusHEsmooth various various Warhead Types anti-personal mines anti-tank mines,and chemical, illumination, Smoke, incendiary, 247

page43 page44 passage if the Palestinian people exercise their right to right exercisetheir peoplePalestinian the if passage safe without viable be could PalestinianState a Second, interestingly, functionsintheabsence ofsafe passage. transportingfromgoods toWestGaza the Bank. convoys goods’ been have there First, questionable. is state’sthe of parts territory.argument this of basis The necessarily must have movement one of viablepeople and goods be between to because viable be cannot state be to contiguous non-contiguous a that is here be premise The viable.truly must it that assumption the to These calls for a viable Palestinian State are often linked a new Palestinian State istruly viable.” that ensure help must and settlement prejudice a final Rice asserted that, “Israel must also take no actions that 2005. February in delivered he speech a in State” Palestinian viable “[a] for called demand Bush President example, For ‘viable.’ be state organizations the that international and politicians many Palestine, of State future the to referring When A. “Viable Statehood”inContext Palestinian State IV. Viabilityofa viable.” Palestinian State istruly need to ensure thatanew Quartet agreed on“the State.” contiguous Palestinian democratic, viable and support for anindependent, calling for “international Annan at theUN,withKofi sentiments were echoed American These official 250 251 Similarly, the 248 iial, Condoleezza Similarly, 249

252 This, the meaningofviability. consider must one correct, is viability of understanding this safe whether ascertain To for State. for Palestinian viable essential abound a passage safe still consider calls which passage, facts, these Despite the safe passage. of necessity the without and absence the in again, This, charges. such other and taxes duties, custom from transit in goods Palestinian exempt to obliged are they economy.Jordanand Egypt Both are signatories.Thus, futurethe on Palestinianimpact enormous its Stateand Arab signatory states. The other exercise of this right could of have an territories the over transit free of right the ‘Palestine’agreement,has this of terms In 1977. of Agreement Transit Arab the of signatory a and States, of League Arab the of member a being their of virtue by Palestinians the to accorded is right This transit. free hte taesbe en lgly r physically or legally means traversable Whether traversable.” carry Dictionary can to According viable and meanings. different viability words the However, non-contiguous doesnotrender itunfeasible. is state the that fact The state. viable a remain yet and non-contiguous be indeed could State Palestinian the what is meant by the term viable, then it would seem that living, able to maintain a separate existence.” The continued.” be or continue to ability the under certain conditions. Also… now esp. feasibility, and or “quality the is stateviable,being of capacity forto ability livethe living, viability of meaning possible first The meanings ofviability. distinct two the to correspond that meanings two has also creation viable word The differ. the will State Palestinian for a of demands the and Israeli- the conflict, of Palestinian context the in viability of meaning the two meanings. Depending on which meaning is adopted, in defined As ‘Viable’ and ‘Viability’ B. Terms Defined:

Oxford English Dictionary , viability can also mean “the condition of being 256 The ibe o cn en “traversable.” mean can too Viable

Oxford English Dictionary English Oxford viable can mean “capable of h Ofr English Oxford The 254 Accordingto viability has viability 255 If this is 257 253

(The West BankandGazatotal area is2,316sq.mi.) Singapore Brunei South ChinaSea Malaysia No Prescribed MinimumSizeofTerritory 2,227 sq.mi Bandar Seri Begawan 267 sq.mi Under InternationalLaw: Examples: Viable States Singapore Malaysia Indonesia Indonesia Arabia Saudi Persian Gulf Manama Belgium France Bahrain Gulf of Luxembourg Luxembourg Bahrain Qatar 998 sq.mi 257 sq.mi Germany

page45 page46 believe to be implied in the fourth criterion. The argument in the Montevideo Convention, but which mentioned many academics specifically not is that criterion There is a fifth (emphasis added) states.relationsother into with enter tocapacity a (iv) permanent a (ii) population; (i) qualifications: should following law the international possess of person a as State “[t]he on Rights and Duties of States, 1933. It reads as follows, statehood for was established criteria in Article I of the Montevideo basic Convention the of formulation definitive law, there must be a legal criteria for statehood. The most Given that states are the principle subjects of international C. LegalCriteriafor Statehood independent existence orsurvival. of capable is it that is viable be to state a for required womb.” the outside especially living, of “capable as or standing,” or existence independent of “capable meaning as viable Dictionary. purpose general preferredthe overbe to is lexicon legal this opinion authors’ the In Dictionary. in the previous paragraph is not supported by However, the understanding of these terms as considered territorial linkbetween theWest a BankandGazaStrip. for calls than more nothing to amount might State’ the Palestinian‘viable a for calls the of if as appears it words, meaning this Given continuity. territorial and demands for territorial contiguity, territorial connectivity the of light in traversable,physicallyespecially mean to the context of a Palestinian State, the term would be used traversableitself.of and questionin a Presumably,is in statehood. know whatisrequired for statehood, itisnecessary to the legal meaningofviable With thisunderstanding of

258 lc’ Lw Dictionary Law Black’s hs entossgetta l htis that all that suggest definitions These adfie territory; defined a (iii) a government; and government; a (iii) ensteword the defines Oxford English Oxford Black’s Law 259

C Nuu niln nteSuhPcfi ca sonly is Ocean Pacific South the in island an Nauru, DC. is only 10 square Ocean, miles -- 0.1 times the size of Washington, Pacific South the in group island an Tuvalu, States. United the of size the times 1.8 miles; square 6,592,771 is Russia states. small very and large very both finds one Indeed, territory. prescribed the of no size minimum is there territory, defined a for need a is need a territorial base from which to function. While there such, as and entities, territorialclearly quite are States Territory 1. ADefined significance. most the holds territory, a defined criteria, second the passage, safe of context the In fully intheinternational sphere. operate cannot entity an independence, without since independencethat is fromimplied is fourththe criterion ewe Gz ad h Ws Bn. h lc o a link a affectwhether not a separateddoes territoriesbetween of lack The Bank. West the and Gaza between applied to the sovereign link called for by the Palestinians be may this particular In areas. distinct geographically its between link a to right inherent an possess not does territory. Canadian Based on past and present of international practice, a state miles 500 approximately by separated are Alaska and States United the Forexample, entity. sovereign foreign a of territory between lies which territories separated comprise may state a In addition, and of particular relevance to this monograph, islands. Thesestates are notgeographically united. 17,508 world’swith largestarchipelagothe is Indonesia archipelagic islandchainsof30atolls and1,152islands. two are Islands Marshall The islands. many also comprise can state A Keeling. and Christmas like islands and islands including Tasmania, Norfolk and very distant mainland the consists which Australia, as such islands, and mainland a of comprised are states Many areas. territorial disconnected of consist may state a Indeed, does not require that the state possess geographical unity. What is vital to note is that the criterion of a definedterritory certain. or the boundariesofterritory befixed miles.square 8.2 261 Further, it is not a requirementthat a not is it Further, 260

262 aetna saeod ept a ak f effective of lack a of governance. recognition despite support statehood PA, Palestinian the by enjoyed control rudimentary the with combined PalestinianStatefuture a of acceptance international universal nearly Today, effectiveness oftheinstitutions isdoubtful. the out, breaks war civil a example,for If, territory. the may be determined by the degree of calm or chaos within territory the under government within control. life Effective of governance aspects system all regulating complete institutions a of is it required is ambiguous, what that somewhat appears is criterion this Although entity’sstatehood. an to crucial is government Effective b. Government municipal lawonnationality. belongs to the population of a state is determined by the size consequence. no of is The population who the of territory. people specific of a with community themselves identify stable a connotes This a. APermanent Population 2. OtherCriteria statehood, orastate’s inherent right. for prerequisite indispensable an not is contiguity if as effectively.governs it which over territory coherentcertain a constitutesstate the that -- territory of control the is essential is What territory. unbroken not is territory What is important in the case of a defined Gaza andtheWest Bank. the of status territories, made no mention of a territorial final link between the of resolution a recommend to 1967 November in adopted was which 242, Resolution captured these territories Israel in the Six-Day War, UN Security Council After territories. two these between connection no was there time, this During Jordan. by occupied was Bank West the by and rule controlledmilitary Egyptian was Strip Gaza the 1967, to 1948 From under international law. new political community should be recognized as a state 265 264 263 Who actually Who 266 It appears It for thePA inGaza. Gaza Strip in August 2005 marks a new level of authority the from disengagement Israeli The reasons. security for territories the of areas many in presence military maintained Israel time which during Intifada, 2000 the of outbreak the following notably most periods, several PA’swerethe therecontrol, Despite rudimentary 1993. in Accords Oslo the following territories the governed its political counterpart, which held power as the PA that Fatah, by replaced was PLOTerritories.Palestinian The governing self- “organized community.” an of short far this fell that influence held he but territories, disputed the Too in influence Much Too Palestine: considerable exerts PLO the of that acknowledged Soon?’ State the ‘The of article, Creation 1990 his in Crawford, James Professor ute dpns n hte te niy n question in entity out carries entity other no that the so independence, enjoys whether on depends It further implemented. effectively be not could obligations international which without territory, a in government other states, depends in part on the power of the internal with relations into enter to capacity the criterion, This Other States c. ACapacitytoEnterintoRelationswith as the doubts satisfy requirement ofgovernance. fact serious in would Palestinians are the whether there to territory,’ ‘defined a of criterion the PalestinianTerritoriessatisfy the although order.of Therefore,semblance any than rather anarchy been has Gaza in rule the Gaza, from disengagement Israeli the since Specifically dissipated. have to seems WestBank and Strip Gaza the over enjoyed PAonce the that control rudimentary the that is concerning is What title to exercise authority. of authority,andtherightor aspects: theactualexercise government actually hastwo The requirement ofeffective 267 ic 19, uh a cagd n the in changed has much 1990, Since

page47 page48 area ofinternational practice. have beendeveloped andhave gainedacceptance inthis state practice. This suggests that further considerations havebeen formulated in response statehoodto modern developments in for criteria additional years recent In e. ModernDevelopments inInternational Law the existence ofbothforms ofindependence. conceivable that the Palestinian entity could to demonstrate able be must state,demonstrate formalboth independence.actual and is It a as recognized be to entity, a far less stringent requirement. existingtoAn statesubject independence. is actual and regarded as existent -- it must demonstrate both formal be will it before independence substantial demonstrate to have will sovereignprevious a from power of grant a or secession by created is that state new A state. a of existencecontinued the for criterion a as independence and statehood independence for as an initial qualification between distinguish must one Thus, differentcontexts. Whileseemingly simple, termthe operates differently in governmental power atthedisposalofitsauthorities. real the -- state putative the of independence effective the torefers which independence, actual is second The territory. the of authorities separate the in territory vested is a independence, over power governing formal where exists is which first The independence. of forms recognized two are There what take. should to it form as arises question the independence, one’s states.’ other with relations into equivalent to, and the foundation of, the ‘capacity to enter criterion, as an implied fifth scholars some by identified been has Independence d. Independence legal requirements. international meet to insufficient be would more, without capacity, such of assertion mere The so. do to capacity a assert merely than rather relations, foreign in engage actually must entity an speaking, Practically obligations. international their for responsible is or 269 270 while others simply view it as 275 274 Thus, the Palestinian 271 n demonstrating In 273 268 272

ni, n te ucniet a dvdd codn to according divided was subcontinent the left and Kingdom India, United the when created was Pakistan the Danzig Corridor proved to be problematic. WestPakistan,andand 1955) to priorBengal East as to raiseconcerns.Fordoexample, PakistanEast (referred that non-contiguous states of examples some however, neverthelessprovenTherethemselves are,viable. be to between which lies foreign sovereign territory -- non- contiguouswhich states ofhave -- present,states consisting and of pasttwo or examples, more parts many are There now turn. we that examples these to is It non-contiguous. is it if capableexistingevenbe of state will a that and viability, prerequisitestate’sa a fornot is contiguity that suggest Examples of both past and present non-contiguous states D. Examples ofViable, Non-ContiguousStates its claimto statehood cannot bemaintained. or norm, then no matter how effective the entity may be, areconsidered toillegal be termsinternationalin of law the satisfy international law. If an entity emerges through acts that with must accordance in statehood entity of standards an traditional statehood, for criteria The rule of legality states that in satisfying the traditional independence ofastate. integrity orpolitical of force against theterritorial refrain from thethreat oruse which saysthatstates shall some basicprecepts, oneof United Nations,setsforth with theCharter ofthe Among States, inaccordance Relations andCooperation Concerning Friendly International Law 277 276 textile mills in the respective areas. Prior to the British the to Prior respectiveareas. the in textilemills of number the at look to needed merely one areas, two the in investment government of degree the between more the populous than East Pakistan. investment As an and indication of the funding differences government receivingmorecountry, divided the dominated Pakistan West Pakistan. West by Pakistan East of exploitation economic the of because primarily occurred Secession was notamongthem. Pakistan West and Pakistan and East of -- non-contiguity the secession of causes main five wereThere case. West and the not was this Pakistanthat indicates fact Historical Pakistan. East between non-contiguity of result the was Pakistan East of secession the and War Liberation Bangladesh the the that claim might and Bank West Gaza between passage safe a of Supporters (formerly East Pakistan) declared herindependence. Bangladesh and surrendered Pakistan West India, of intervention the after 1971, in Eventually rebellion. the EastPakistanis Westby Pakistani million troops toquash trying three approximately of murder the to led and 1971, in erupted that War Liberation Bangladesh the of cause immediate the was demand This Pakistan. East for autonomy advocated League Awami the Therefore, Pakistaniswere preparednot torelinquish control.their West the and Pakistan,West by dominated been always had Pakistan of government the election, 1970 the to Prior leadership office. enter to party elected the Pakistan-dominatedallow not would West the However, an 1970, power.cameto League, Awami PakistaniEastthe party, December, in held elections general the In Zone wascalled East Bengal. Westerncalledwas Zone West Pakistan Easternthe and territory.The Indian of miles 1,000 over by another one fromseparated Pakistan, East and WestPakistan units: two of consisted state the 1971 to 1947 from and 1947, Muslim 14, a August on with independence gained India Pakistan majority. West and East in territories of composed was Pakistan and nation, Muslim separate a Pakistan’s religiousaffiliation. 278 raison d’etre raison

was to formto was 279 the more populous ofthetwo. being its despite West, the by subjugated speaking, of manner a in was, Pakistan East Thus, Pakistan’s votes. East balance to solely done was This unit. voting one consideredWestPakistanwas of where all unit,’ ‘one of scheme a formulated Pakistanis West Pakistanis, East populous more the of hands the have in power concentrated would voting of system straightforward a Since Pakistanis. West of hands the into fell power political Pakistan. Even though East Pakistan was more populous, West and Pakistan East differencesbetween political of existencethe Warwas Liberation the of cause second A while thoseinWest Pakistan hadcatapulted to 150. of textile mills in East Pakistan had increased to only 26, compared to West Pakistan’s nine. By 1971, the number withdrawal, East Pakistan boasted eleven textile mills as the creation ofBangladesh. and Pakistan East of secession the to led turn in which War, Liberation the to led results election the accept to victory of the Awami League. The refusal by West Pakistan eventuallandslide the Pakistan, Eastand secessionist movementsin of development the to led factors These Pakistan, manyofwhomlost theirlives. resulted in a revolt by both students and civilians in East eventuallycontroversy language The Pakistan. East in and group majority the Purjabi by spoken was Bangia spoke while Sindhi, Pakistan West in group majority the The Bihans. the by provedEast in the in and Miyahir the spokenby West This only was Pakistan. Urdu of because controversial all of languages ofﬁcial the debate declared were Urdu language and Dhaka the 1948, In was existed. that war of cause fourth The percent. non-Muslim populationofﬁfteen Muslim, and less liberal than East Pakistan, which had a ideologically. West Pakistan’s population was 97 percent extent to which Islam was followed divided the territories differingWest The Pakistan.and Pakistan East between observance religious in differences were there Thirdly, 281 283 282

280

page49 page50 France accepted thisargument. and Britain state, strongPolish a WantingGermany. on dependent politically and economically be would it Sea, if the new Polish state did not have an outlet to the Baltic Francethat and Britain convince to ablewere Poles the politically and Economically German. was population people considerthemselvesthe who of Onlyminority Polish).a (a Kashubian or Polish, was population the of majority the Ethnographically Prussia. to transferred was it when 1772, till 1453/66 approximately from and and Polish from the tenth century till the fourteenth century, been economic, had territory the Historically, ethnographic, grounds. political historical, on be to said justified was territory the of transfer Versailles The of 1919. Treaty in the by Poland to Germany from transferred territory of strip a was Corridor Polish The passage could pose. such that threat the demonstrates it Indeed, passage. safe of creation the support to fails also example carefullythis examined when However, Corridor. Danzig the of that is passage safe a of creation the of favor in those by cited be perhaps could that example further A experience. Pakistani the to point cannot contiguity therefore, and Strip Gaza and Bank West the between link territorial sovereign a for Calls dissolution. its in role no played it fact, In dissolution. its caused not had non-contiguity its non-contiguous, been had Pakistan while Clearly, already tense situation. Pakistan only aggravated an and theirfailure to aidEast the West Pakistani leadership East Pakistan. Theapathyof major hurricane that affected the warwasimpactofa of cause final and The fifth 285 284 road (under German sovereignty) through the Corridor, the throughsovereignty) German (under road of annexation Danzig, as well as for construction of an extra-territorial the German for the demands 1939, early intensified government In Poland. to attention his annexations of Austria and Czechoslovakia, Hitler the turned Following 1934. of Pact Non-Aggression German rapprochement with Poland, even concluding the Polish- of policy a to adopted Hitler came Initially, Hitler, Germany. in Adolf power by led Party, Nazi the 1933, In under thecontrol oftheLeagueNations. placed‘Freeand the Danzig’ made of was City Danzig of borders agreed to at Versailles. the recognize to refusing governments German I War post-World all with Germany, in resentment great was German transit was permitted across the corridor, there free Although Germany. of rest the from Prussia East The corridor ranged from 20-70 miles wide. It separated n h fr o ter pae apoc. Ti cls for calls This approach.’ ‘phased their of form the in policy, expansionist an Palestinians,adopted have Germans, The the like passage. such against militates it fact, In WestBank. the and Gaza between passagesafe for call the support not does example this Therefore, an aggressive expansionist policy. contiguous but because Hitler’s government had adopted contiguity. Germany attacked not because she was non- for calls on based invasion German the for need no was There territory. German sovereign not was transit for was therefore contiguous, even though the territory used in fact enjoyed free transit across the corridor. The state authors’ opinion this is clearly not the case. Germany had the in Corridor, re-annexedthe or Poland invaded have not would Germany passage argue safe been and there Danzig had that passage, the safe of for case justification a the as Corridor see might some Although ֿ were re-annexed to Germany. Corridor Polish the and Danzig control, German under was Poland after and Poland, invaded Germany 1939, September, in as avail, no to was This demands. these Germany. of rest France,rejectedand Britain of support the with Poland, the with Prussia East connecting 288 286

The important seaport 287 ol hv sm eooi viability.” economic some have would that the proposed state, in spite of its tortuous boundaries, leadership,Jewish the struggledmake everyone“to see segments. three Diplomats comprise at to the United was Nations, staterepresenting Each state. Arab an and U.N. the GeneralAssembly 1947,voted toestablish Jewishastate both 29, November On non- states. of contiguous acceptance its demonstrated has General Assembly Nations United the than authority lesser No have would it resulted inanon-contiguous Jewish state. implemented, been it had and states, non-contiguous against compunction no had It above. This is known as the Peel Commission Report, discussed 1937. in authorities Mandatory British the by advanced this monograph, was a proposed solution for the conflict of topic the to closer geographically example, Another contiguous states thatwere notviable orsustainable. seem to be viable, far exceed non- these examples of past of non- number the contiguousstates arethat problematicnot do which and is point this accentuates What implemented becomes ever more ominous. being approach staged the of possibility the elections, quoted above. With Hamas’ victory in the 2006 Palestinian approachclearlyphased is charter, Hamas statedthe in moreand evereffective.This easier made be will Israel on attacks where from lines, armistice 1949 the along phases, one of which is the creation of a Palestinian State in State Jewish the of destruction and overrunning the contiguous state isnotviable. they suggest thatanon- such apassage. Nordo for itscreation, donotjustify would cite asjustification proponents ofsafe passage Danzig examples, which Clearly, thePakistan and 289 h Jewish The Jordanians had an interest in the Mount from a military a from Mount the interestin an had Jordanians Therefore,Jerusalem. in strategicpoint highest the the was, at the time of the 1948 War of Israeli Independence, hospital, Hadassah original the and campus, main then University’s Hebrew the housing that Scopus, Mount during time. Jerusalem of part Israeli-ruled the with non-contiguous completely was it though even enclave the over sovereignty retained Israel Scopus. Mount on enclave an maintained Israel 1967, of War Six-Day the Jerusalem. From the July 1949 Armistice Agreement until furnished by the Mount Scopus enclave in North-Eastern was East, Middle hotly-contested the in even function, can states non-contiguous that demonstration Further territories offered them. The Arab leadership non-contiguous rejected it. virtually the despite Plan Partition Assembly’s General the accepted leadership few hours the convoy waits on Scopus, you are free to free are you Scopus, on waits convoy the hours few the During freely. breathe passengers the and opened of the Israel enclave begins, they alight, the shutters are Cemetery on Mount Scopus where the demilitarized area War British the At us. with are they while speak to not warned are We bus. crowded the enter soldiers enter with rifles you Arab Two officer, blinded. completely is which UN bus, antique an a by checked identification your had “Having says, Benturich Professor books. million a half almost the for care to campus the to up allowed faculty University the of member a Benturich, Norman two weeks. A typical journey was described by Professor for provisions caretakersand civilian guards, a of change carried convoy The escort. UN a with traveled that Israel fromconvoy a by weeks two every onceaccessed be only could Scopus Mount Agreement, Armistice the thereto.” access free and Mount Scopus on institutions humanitarian and cultural the of functioning normal the of “resumption the for calls Agreement. Armistice an concluded parties the 1949, 3, April On forces. UN replacementtheir with and troopsMount fromall the of On July 7, 1948, Jordan and Israel agreed to the withdrawal over thestrategically situated campus andhospital. control retain to keen were Israelis The view. of point 291 h Areets ril VIII Article Agreement’s The 292 oee, under However, 290

page51 page52 contiguity. function and maintain a separate existence without such a as could appears, it state, State The viability. its prerequisitefor Palestinian contiguous territorially a call for the against militate to appears viable, are which states,arenon-contiguous therewereand that fact The the from separated is Croatia of • region southern The • The United States is separated from its state of Alaska of region southern its from separated is • Argentina Musandam of port strategic the controls • Oman (Ambeno) Oecussi its from separated is Timor • East • Brunei consists of two territories, physically separated Naxcivan the of exclave the includes • Azerbaijan is which Kaliningrad, of Oblast the maintains Russia • mile-long 158 oil-rich, its from separated is Angola • states thatare nonetheless viable include: present. Examples ofcurrent non-contiguous Some states remain discontiguous tothe existence, can beviable. its of decades two ﬁrst the for Israel as such states, non-contiguous East, Middle hostile the in even that appears it Thus, return.” to time is it until wander rest ofCroatia bya16-mile stretch ofBosnian coast. by approximately 500miles ofCanadianterritory. Ushuaia byChilean territory. territory by separated belonging to theUnited Arab is Emirates. it although Peninsula, by Indonesia. region on the northwest portion of the island of Timor by Malesia. the over Nagorno-Karabakh region). Armenia and Azerbaijan between exists from separated is Azerbaijan-properunresolved(an Armenia by dispute which Republic, Autonomous Poland, andtheBalticSea. Lithuania, by surrounded enclave non-contiguous a Congo. the of Republic Democratic the by Province Cabinda 293

296 297

294 295 299

298

300 between GazaandtheWest Bank. applied to the sovereign link called for by the Palestinians be may this particular In areas. distinct geographically its between link a to right inherent an possess not does based on past and present international practice, a state recognized as a state under international law. In addition, be should community political new a whether affect not revealsthat the lack of a link analysis between separated territories monograph’sdoes This viable. be cannot state non-contiguous a that being Palestinian premise viable the a State, for call the in imbedded often is Bank. Indeed, the need for a territorial link of some sort Thus, safe passage is called for to link Gaza and the West State. Palestinianviable a of existence the for essential Gaza and the West Bank -- whether sovereign or not -- is Conventional wisdom insists that a territorial link between Conclusion questionable. is passage safe for need the Thus, State. Palestinian profess their commitment to an economically successful statesArab the as much as in capitalizedupon be to not exceptional“very a basis.” with regard to transit transport is practiced” it is done on fully been not capitalized upon, and while “the right of the Palestinians has This duties. and customs checks, security many its with passage safe a to preferable be charges. such other and taxes exempt Palestinian goods in transit from customs duties, the Agreement. They are therefore under an obligation to to signatories are Jordan and Egypt Both Agreement. the to parties are that countries Arab all of territories the across transit free of right the has ‘Palestine’ 1977, TransitArab Agreementof the to signatory a and States of League Arab the of member a regime.being Second, passage safe any use of absence the in despite years, ten was for this Interestingly, Jordan. to there from and Bank, West the to Gaza from goods of movement the affect which above, discussed convoys, were there First, case. the not is this However, viable. be to state their for Bank West and Strip Gaza the between goods transport to able be to need Palestinians the least very the at that thinks generally One questionable. is link a Notwithstanding conventional wisdom, the need for such 302 There is no reasonforthis no There is 301 hs ol surely would This exerciseeffective government, exerciseor even nominal to fail utterly leaders elected its because statehood for criteria the satisfy not may ‘Palestine’ admirers, and territory its would be non-contiguous. becauseDespite their numerous allies not but arise, might ‘Palestine’ for statehood to bar a fact, In statehood. to bar no be would this territory, non-contiguous have Palestinians the Therefore,should statehood. prerequisitefor a not is contiguity territorial law, international under Thus, or confer arightto safe passage passage. safe for call not does conflict, the to solution any of foundation the 242, Resolution Council Security U.N. importantly, more Perhaps passage. safe to right a conferred agreements eight these of none passage, defunct largely the interim Oslo Agreements While mentioned the creation of safe well. as conflict Palestinian in particular, a sovereign link. This applies to the Israeli- inherent right to a special link connecting those areas, and no haveareas geographicallydistinct of up made states Both past and present that international practice confirm law.international under right also a as states to granted not is it but law, international by state a of not required -- not or sovereign it be -- link a such is only Not passage dubious. safe Palestinian is demand the for of basis legal the also need but questionable, the is only Not international law. of developments inthefield have arisenasaresult of terms ofmoderncriteria that criteria for statehood, nor in not underthetraditional requirement for statehood; Likewise contiguity isnota require territorial contiguity. International lawdoesnot out itsJewish population. driving or obliterating at aimed attacks genocidal even and conventional planning and for calling organizations acutelythreatening statesterroristregionboth and with doing so. As demonstrated above, Israel is situated in an Undeniably Israel’s security concerns militate against her to create such passage, but it is in no way obliged to on do so. obligation such Israel. Out of humanitarian concern Israel could choose no is There misled. or mistaken wholly are passage a such create to by law international obliged is Israel that assert who those Therefore, could notcreate aviable, non-contiguous state. they why reason no see authors the WestBank, the and Gaza in the order and law sustain Should and restorePalestinians Territories. Palestinian the over control by anysuchcommitments. safe passage, then Israel would no longer remain bound Iranian missiles or Hezbollah terrorists the length of the smuggling example, for by, treaty the breach then and the implementation with terms its of the comply of treaty until day the to first Palestinians is the This were treaty.important: a such renounce expressly or tacitly creates that such an treatyarrangement, or should the the Palestinians of violation a be there should passage international of concept legal entitlesalso such servitudes toof terminateher use the The the over itself. sovereignty passage retain to her urges servitudes international of concept the to Indeed, passage Palestinians. the such over sovereignty she transfer passage, not safe need a create to choose Israel Should protect itscitizens. self-defense anditsdutyto points, inlightof its rightto control over thecrossing retaining Israel’s law justifies importantly, international Moreover, andas

page53 page54 the IndianOcean, andtheFar East. seaport, Aqaba the to access ready have will Jordan through and Jordan with contiguous be will Bank West the Similarly, world. the of rest the to access have will it Mediterranean, the on seaport a has it because and Egypt, with contiguous be will It world. Arab the restof the from isolated be not will Strip Gaza The viable. be be non-contiguous from the West Bank, the state will still deeply this for ingrained belief. He reasonargues that while the Gaza no Strip may sees however Dershowitz WestBank. the and Strip Gaza the between link land no be to indeed is there if viablepolitically economicallyor contiguous. They reject the notion that the Palestinian completely State could be be not may State Palestinian proposed the that fact the on rejection their base often conflictIsraeli-Palestinian the to solution two-state the of opponents Dershowitz, Alan Professor by noted ֿAs “viable state.” a for necessary as deem leaders world some what and “connectivity” “continuity,” contiguity,” “territorial with even fail also could They areas. these in succeed could people, other any than per-capita aid foreign of more recipient the as appear, would it law. Palestinians, The of rule the to commitment its and institutions educational structure, economic nature, democratic its the nation’s not viability is not its size, but governance, according to Stephens, of quality extent the of terrain.” of function a chiefly Bretcountry’sStephens,“a ‘sustainability,’or viability is journalist distinguished by upon commented as fact, In Qatar, new a be economically thrivingoffitsbountifulgasreserves. yet could Gaza -- economy no with what most people would imagine Gaza to be -- a dustbowl reserves, gas discovered off the coast of Gaza. natural rich with endowed is ‘Palestine’ Further, contiguous, yet fully viable states. non- of examples of state. shortage no a is there reiterate, To of “Bantustan” non-viable a to Palestinians the relegating be not would she passage, safe of form any createto not choose IsraelYasser should by Arafat, Most importantly, contrary assertion to the inflammatory 303 Given this, the best determinant of a 307 Contrary to 306 305 304

stated objectives to destroystatedtoenticeobjectives to morale, Israeliand clearly their given and civilians, Israeli on attacks daily (and intent clear virtually launch the terroristtogroups various of capability) given lie, risk the does Where ‘threat’ to Israel’s contiguity attracted no public concern? the essentialhas featurean then indeed why viability, of northern and southern regions. If territorial contiguity is would Palestinians the disconnected into divided non-contiguous, renderIsrael for passage safe Sovereign viability. state’s a for essential as identiﬁes Stephens Bret what by also but today, exist that is states fact This non-contiguous successful, the by only not existence.highlighted independent of capable as and Gaza, will not be viable, where “viable” is understood Bank West the between link territorial a lacking State, There is therefore no reason to believe that a Palestinian of the variousthe of proposals for implementing safe passage. above, Israel has legitimate security concerns arising out accede to this unprecedented demand. As demonstrated derogation in of Israeli sovereignty, be Israel is not required would to which Strip, Gaza the and Bank between West the link territorial a upon insist some Although than areturn to thepre-1967 armistice lines. more even demanding fact in are Palestinians the two, Egyptian the between contiguity demanding when Thus, under control. fell Strip Gaza the while annexation, non- fact in Westthe Indeed, werecontiguous. fellJordanian Bank under Strip Gaza the and Bank West the 1967, to prior as case the is This lines. armistice 1967 pre- the along established be State Palestinian a that Palestiniandemand maximalist the arebeyondpassage callsIsrael.Indeed, by for territorial contiguity safeand caused not was non-contiguity non- future such State, a Palestinian whatever of parts that the between note remain may to contiguity essential is it Finally, Palestinian safe passage have even mentionedthis. best knowledge of the authors, none of the proponents of safe passage, deserves careful consideration. Yet, to the at risk, Israel’s predicament, as augmented by Palestinian Westernalienatestate’s any If governments? is viability her to respond with disproportionate force and thereby to 308 euiy ragmns o tee ovy. ie that Given convoys. these for arrangements security the West Bank. However the document does not discuss proposals benchmark address passenger The and cargo convoys between Gaza and the Israel. foresee to to threat neglected security have States United the by propelled proposals “benchmark” the events, recent In safe for means passage ofPalestinian persons andgoods. and ways the negotiating bilaterally in forthcoming more be then would Israel assuaged. be could anxiety Israel’s Roadmap, the by required as concerns, such as by dismantling the terror infrastructure these addressconstructively to werePalestinians the If

USA Alaska Juneau Paciﬁc Ocean h uwral Plsiin ra o a territorially a contiguous state thatreserves of theoptionofterrorism. dream Palestinian avoid unworkable to made the be should effort Every begin. process should peace renewed any that basis a such on is It faith. good in Israel with negotiating simply by served better be would they Israel, isolate to attempting and safe of audience world the to form turning of instead legitimatethen passage, a desire Palestinians the If keep theseconvoys free ofarmsandterrorists. factin would terror,it reasonbelievetherethat not to is anti-Israel combat to nothing done has PA the hitherto, Seattle Canada

page55 page56 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Notes Khaled AbuToameh, Fatah GunmenThreaten Arab TVStation Khaled AbuToameh, Fatah GunmenKill2EgyptianBorder Control; in Longer no We’re Khaled AbuToameh, PA Official: Guideto thePeace Process: TheMadridFramework, www. TheIsrael PLO Agreement ontheGazaStripandGreater Declaration ofPrinciples onInterim Self-Government SeeJamesCrawford, TheCriteria for Statehood in NiiLante Wallace-Bruce, Claimsto Statehood inInternational Krystyna Marek, IdentityandContinuityofStates in Khaled AbuToameh, ThugsThreaten Palestinian reporters, Kae b omh AOfiil er oLne nControl; in Longer no We’re Khaled AbuToameh, PA Official: Control; in Longer no We’re Khaled AbuToameh, PA Official: Control; in Longer no We’re Khaled AbuToameh, PA Official: SeeKhaled Abu Toameh, ThugsThreaten Palestinian Foxnews.com home,Timeline:Steve Centanni andOlafWiig’s Khaled AbuToameh, Fatah GunmenThreaten Arab TVStation of Foreign Affairs, Government ofIsrael [hereinafter DOP]. Government Arrangements, Sept.13,1993,Isr.-PLO, Ministry Arrangements. SeeDeclaration ofPrinciples onInterim Self- International Law,48BYIL93,114(1976-1977). International Law,13NYIL61,67(1982). Law 51-52(1994);Malcolm. N.Shaw,Territory in International Law15(Droit 1968). 1, 2006,at9. ‘Situation Similarto SomalianAnarchy,’ Jerusalem Post, Jan. 1, 2006,at9. ‘Situation Similarto SomalianAnarchy,’ Jerusalem Post, Jan. reporters, Jerusalem Post, Jan.9,2006,at2. articles/2007/04/16/news/gaza.php Tribune, Apr. 16,2007,available at:http://www.int.com/ Family begsfor endto GazaOrdeal,” International Herald paid ransom. IsabelKeishener,“KidnappedBBCJournalist’s been kidnappedinGaza,manyfreed after theiremployers claim he has been killed. At least 22 Western journalists have kidnapped BBCjournalist AlanJohnston, whosekidnappers visited Jan.10,2007).Thecurrent attention isfocused on http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,210767,00.htm Ordeal, Foxnews.com online,Aug.28,2006available at: Jerusalem Post, Jan.9,2006,at2. for ‘Defaming’ Bombers, Jerusalem Post, Jan.8,2006,at5. for ‘Defaming’ Bombers, Jerusalem Post, Jan.8,2006,at5. Guards, Jerusalem Post, Jan.5,2006,at1. longer incontrol. no is PA the that admitted 1, 2006,at1.AseniorPA official ‘Situation Similarto SomalianAnarchy,’ Jerusalem Post, Jan. mfa.gov.il. Agreement]. of Foreign Affairs, Government ofIsrael [hereinafter Cairo Gaza StripandJerichoArea, May4,1999,Isr.-PLO, Ministry of local governance inthoseareas. SeeAgreement onthe Jericho area, andallows the PA to assume most functions administration andmilitary forces intheGazaStripand Jericho Area provides for thepartialredeployment ofIsraeli l (last 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 Justus R.Weiner, TheTemporary International Presence in UNAssociation oftheUnited States ofAmerica, Issues before Yaakov Katz,3,000Weapons Streaming Monthly into Gaza Yaakov Katz,3,000Weapons Streaming Monthly into Gaza Neuman,Brooke, ANew RealityontheEgypt-GazaBorder Neuman,Brooke, ANew RealityontheEgypt-GazaBorder Control; in Longer no We’re Khaled AbuToameh, PA Official: Wikipedia, TheFree Encyclopaedia, HilaryLeila Krieger,Gaza-West BankConvoys put on hold, Margot Dudkevitch, 2,990Terror Attacks During 2005‘Truce,’ Margot Dudkevitch, 2,990 Terror Attacks During2005‘Truce,’ Margot Dudkevitch, 2,990 Terror Attacks During2005‘Truce,’ Margot Dudkevitch, 2,990 Terror Attacks During2005‘Truce,’ Margot Dudkevitch, 2,990 Terror Attacks During2005‘Truce,’ Available at: Available at: DanIzenberg &Yaakov Katz,‘Karnicrossing isanacidtest of Margot Dudkevitch, 2,990Terror Attacks During2005‘Truce,’ Margot Dudkevitch, 2,990Terror Attacks During2005‘Truce,’ Available at:http://www.passia.org/meetings.2005/Prison- into Tom Regan,USdemandsIsraeli AirForce stop flights the CityofHebron: AUniqueApproach to Peacekeeping. 16(1) J. Puchala&Frederic Eckhandeds.,1982). the 37thGeneral Assembly oftheUnited Nations12(Donald – Diskin,Jerusalem Post, Jan.2,2006,at2. – Diskin,Jerusalem Post, Jan.2,2006,at2. php?CID=2374. 19, 2005.http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05. (Part I):Contents oftheNew Israel-Egypt Agreement, Sept. php?CID=2374. 19, 2005.http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05. (Part I):Contents oftheNew Israel-Egypt Agreement, Sept. 1, 2006,at9. ‘Situation Similarto SomalianAnarchy,’ Jerusalem Post, Jan. 1, 2006,at9. ‘Situation Similarto SomalianAnarchy,’ Jerusalem Post, Jan. oktfildwt xlsvs eeoe yHms Three Hamas. by developed explosives, with rocket filled wiki/Qassam_rocke Jerusalem Post, Dec.16,2005,at1. Jerusalem Post, Jan.2,2006,at3. Jerusalem Post, Jan.2,2006,at3. Jerusalem Post, Jan.2,2006,at3. Jerusalem Post, Jan.2,2006,at3. Jerusalem Post, Jan.2,2006,at3. arkur+junc.ht 2009/2002/10/suicide+bombing+of+Egged+bus+No+841+at+K young.detainees/index.htm Abu Manen’s Capabilities,’Jerusalem Post, Jan.5,2007,at3. Jerusalem Post, Jan.2,2006,at3. Jerusalem Post, Jan.2,2006,at3. Guard.hm. (last visited Apr. 2,2007)) on Dec.12,2006). csmonitor.com/2006/1103/dailyUpdate.html?s=re Lebanese airspace, Nov. 3,2006,available at: Wisconsin International LawJournal315(1997). http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/200_ http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/03/24/ m (last visited: Feb. 28,2007). t . TheQassam Rocket isasimple steel l (last visited Feb. 28,2007). http://en.wikipedia.org/ http://www. l (last visited 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 J.A.Andrews, TheConcept ofStatehood andtheAcquisition NiiLante Wallace-Bruce, Claimsto Statehood inInternational 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 Deutsche Continental Gas-Gesselschaft v. Polish State Thevarious theoriesasto therelationship between states Peter Malanczuk,Akehurst’s ModernIntroduction to SeeNiiLante Wallace-Bruce, Claims to Statehood in SeeMalcolm N.Shaw,International Law140(4thed.1997). SeeNiiLante Wallace-Bruce, Claimsto Statehood in Convention onRightsandDutiesofStates signedat Charter oftheUnited Nations,available at: Dr. MeirRosenne,“Understanding UNSecurityCouncil S.C.Res.242,22U.N.SCOR,1382dmeeting(1967). Khaled AbuToameh, Palestinian Groups Threaten Israel with Gaza, from Israel into Yaakov Katz,Katyusharocket fired Ibrahim Barzak,NorthCountyTimes,Dec.25,2005. Op-ed,Un”safe passage,” Jerusalem Post, Dec.12,2005,at XinhuaNews Agency“OPT:Israel SaysNoGaza-West Op-ed,Un”safe passage,” Jerusalem Post, Dec.12,2005,at Op-ed,Un”safe passage,” Jerusalem Post, Dec.12,2005,at Malcolm N.Shaw,International Law139(4thed.1997).The nationals should notbeliquidated. Further, Article 297(b) part ofPoland, theproperty, rights,andinterests ofGerman provided thatinalltheGermanterritory thatwasto become Versailles, following World War I.Article 92oftheTreaty was oneoftheFourteen Points enshrinedintheTreaty of (1929) 5.A.D.NO.5,at14-15.The creation ofaPolish State and territory willbediscussed below. International Law76-77(7thed.1997)(1970). Shaw, International Law140(4thed.1997). of PublicInternational Law73(4thed.1990);andMalcolm N. International Law53(4thed.1994);IanBrownlie, Principles International Law57(Carlton Press Inc 1994). Montevideo on26Dec.,1933, 165LNTS19. (1978). of Territory intheNineteenth Century,94LQR 408,413 413 (1994). Nations andNGO’s are alsofullsubjectsofinternational law. all. Today, itwould appearthatentities,suchas,theUnited subjects ofinternational law. Thisview isnolonger shared by traditional view ininternational lawwasthatonly states are aboutun/charter/chapter6.ht Defensible Borders for aLasting Peace. JCPA. Resolution 242ofNovember 22,1967,ontheMiddle East.” New Long-RangeMissiles, Jerusalem Post, Dec.27,2005. Jerusalem Post, Mar. 29,2006. 13. -635PF db900SID/VBOL-6K2JCK?OpenDocument&rc=3&emid=ACOS 2005, available at: Bank Convoys UntilRocket Fire Stops” ReliefWeb, Dec.13, 13. 13. used against civilians. be to weapon terror a as system and are designed specifically models have beenused.Allthree modelslackaguidance R (last visited: Feb. 28,2007). http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/ m (last visited Dec.31,2006). www.un.org/ OnDecember 14,1923,thePolish Committee ofLiquidation, 60 59 58 57 56 Available at: Available at: Available at: TheHamasCharter. Available at: Krystyna Marek, IdentityandContinuityof States in 297 (b)therightofAlliedandAssociated Powers to liquidate territories ceded byGermany,thattheterms ofArticle of theTreaty to restrict Poland’s rightofliquidationto the and 297(b).Theplaintiffcontended thatitwastheintention ground thattheliquidationwasinconsistent withArticles 92 provided for inArticle 305oftheTreaty ofVersailles onthe Poland). Theobjectofthelitigationwasto obtain redress company inWarsaw (former Russian territory acquired by ordered theliquidationofproperty owned bytheplaintiff existence. Versailles Treaty, andatthedate oftheTreaty’s coming into protectorates, includingterritories ceded to thembythe nationals withintheirterritories, colonies, possessions, and all property, rights,andinterests, belonging to German Associated Powers reserve therightto retain andliquidate itself. There isalsoareservation suchthattheAlliedand contrary stipulations whichmaybeprovided for intheTreaty of theAnnex attached. However, thisissubjectto any the principles laiddown inthisSectionandtheprovisions interests inanenemycountry shallbe settled according to stipulates thatthequestion ofprivate property, rights,and Zionism,’ stated that“Israel shouldbewiped offthemap.” Ahmadinejad, speaking ataforum called ‘TheWorld Without 19, 2006).OnOctober 26,2005,Iranian President Mahmud news/iran/2005/iran-051101-rfer/01.ht State andthedestruction ofIsrael through holy war. Jihad iscommitted to thecreation ofanIslamicPalestinian 10252.htm#pi aggression and organized terrorism.” land asthelivingmaterialization ofthemost hideouskindsof its people andestablishing theentityofIsrael onitsusurped “views the Zionist Jews’ occupation ofPalestine, displacing 24, 2006).Hezbollah,aterrorist organization inLebanon, 324.2/hizballah/hizballah-background.ht org/hamas.ht International Law15(Droit 1968). argument. boundaries were notdelimited. Thecourt rejected this considered as The Polish state, itwasargued, could nottherefore be frontiers oftheterritory thusceded were notyet delimited. there wasacession oftheterritory byRussia to Poland, the it to Poland. Inthealternative, even ifitwere assumed that was situated belonged to Russia, whohadnotthenceded argued thatatthetimeterritory inwhichtheproperty than thatwhichGermanyhadceded to her. Indeed,itwas the Treaty ofVersailles) Poland possessed nootherterritory that onJanuary10,1920(thedate ofthecoming into force of was limited to Germanproperty withintheirterritory, and http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/ http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2001/html/ http://almashriq.hiof.no/lebanon/300/320/324/ m j (last visited Aug.19,2006).Palestinian Islamic de jure (last visited March 1,2007). possessing theterritory, since the http://www.mideastweb. m m (last visited Nov. (last visited Oct.

page57 page58 88 87 86 85 84 83 82 81 80 79 78 77 76 75 74 73 72 71 70 69 68 67 66 65 64 63 62 61 NiiLante Wallace-Bruce, Claimsto Statehood inInternational JamesCrawford, TheCriteria for Statehood inInternational JamesCrawford, TheCriteria for Statehood inInternational JamesCrawford, TheCriteria for Statehood inInternational JamesCrawford, TheCriteria for Statehood inInternational JamesCrawford, TheCriteria for Statehood inInternational Restatement (2nd),Foreign RelationsLawoftheUnited JamesCrawford, TheCriteria for Statehood inInternational JamesCrawford, TheCriteria for Statehood inInternational JamesCrawford, TheCriteria for Statehood inInternational NiiLante Wallace-Bruce, Claimsto Statehood inInternational [1931]P.C.I.J. REP. seriesA/B,No.41. ReportsofInternational Arbitral Awards, vol. 2,at829,838 Malcolm N.Shaw,International Law143(1997). SeeNiiLante Wallace-Bruce, Claimsto Statehood in SeeNiiLante Wallace-Bruce, Claimsto Statehood in JamesCrawford, TheCriteria for Statehood inInternational SeeJamesCrawford, TheCreation oftheState ofPalestine: Peter Malanczuk,Akehurst’s ModernIntroduction to Francis A.Boyle, TheCreation oftheState ofPalestine, 1 JamesCrawford, TheCriteria for Statehood inInternational JamesCrawford, TheCreation ofStates inInternational Law, 4 No. Supplement Special Journal, LeagueofNationsOfficial JamesCrawford, TheCriteria for Statehood inInternational SeeNiiLante Wallace-Bruce, Claimsto Statehood in SeeJamesCrawford, TheCriteria for Statehood in NiiLante Wallace-Bruce, Claimsto Statehood inInternational James Crawford, TheCreation ofStates inInternational 44-45, (1979). (1920) at8-9. Law, 48BYIL93,117(1976-1977). International Law54(1994). International Law,48BYIL93,114(1976-1977). International Law,13NYIL61,67(1982). Law 51-52(1994);Malcolm. N.Shaw,Territory in Law, 260-61(1979). Guinea-Bissau wascolonized by Law 79-82(1994).Thiswillbediscussed below. Law, 48BYIL93,142(1976-1977). Law, 48BYIL93,142(1976-1977). Law, 48BYIL93,142(1976-1977). Law, 48BYIL93,141(1976-1977). Law, 48BYIL93,140-41(1976-1977). States (1965)S100. Law 48BYIL93,120(1976-1977). Law 48BYIL93,126(1976-1977). Law 48BYIL93,123(1976-1977). Law 58(1994). (1928). International Law57(1994). International Law55-56(1994). Law, 48BYIL93,119(1976-1977). Too MuchToo Soon?,1EJIL 307,308-309(1990). International Law77(7thed.1997)(1970). EJIL, 301(1990). Law, 48BYIL93,116-17(1976-1977). 92 91 90 89 104 103 102 101 100 99 98 97 96 95 by assumed 94 obligations the faith good in States shallfulfill Sovereign equalityofstates; and Principles ofequalrightsandself-determination ofpeoples; Thedutyofstates to cooperate withoneanother; Thedutynotto intervene inmatters within thedomestic States shallsettle theirinternational disputes bypeaceful States shallrefrain from thethreat oruseofforce against the 93 NiiLante Wallace-Bruce, Claimsto Statehood inInternational JamesCrawford, TheCriteria for Statehood inInternational Astate’s dutyofnon-interference willbediscussed below. NiiLante Wallace-Bruce, Claimsto Statehood inInternational NiiLante Wallace-Bruce, Claims to Statehood inInternational Malcolm N.Shaw,International Law,145(1997). Malcolm N.Shaw,International Law,144(1997). JamesCrawford, TheCriteria for Statehood inInternational MichaelCurtis,International LawandtheTerritories 32 SeeNiiLante Wallace-Bruce, Claimsto Statehood in NiiLante Wallace-Bruce, Claimsto Statehood inInternational Nii Lante Wallace-Bruce, Claims to Statehood inInternational Malvina Halberstam, SelfDetermination in theArab-Israeli Michael Curtis,International LawandtheTerritories, 32 Michael Curtis,International LawandtheTerritories, 32 Nii Lante Wallace-Bruce, Claimsto Statehood inInternational Law, 66-67(1994). Law, 48BYIL93,108(1976-1977). Law, 66(1994). granted to Guinea-Bissau. Id. traditional criteria ofstatehood, recognition asastate was despite thefact thatGuinea-Bissau didnotsatisfythe not concluded untilAugust of1974.Despite this,andthus Independence between Portugal andGuinea-Bissau was its admission to theU.N.However, theAgreement Granting the U.N.SecurityCouncilthatunanimously recommended been recognized byeighty-four countries, andwelcomed by proclaimed independence. ByMay1974,the‘state’ had liberated alarge partofthecountry, and in1973formally resistance, in1970theIndependence Party claimedto have the CapeVerde Islandswasformed in1956.Usingarmed 10, 2007).TheAfrican Independence Party ofGuineaand http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guinea-Bissa Portugal beginninginthe17thcentury. Available at: oflc:Maig yhadPltc,2 .. .ItlL&Pol. & L Int’l J. N.Y.U 465 (1989). 21 Politics, and Myth Meaning, Conflict: Harvard Int’lL.J.457,471(1991). Harvard Int’lL.J.457,470(1991). Law, 79-82(1994). Law, 69(1994). Law 48BYIL93,152(1976-1977). Harvard International LawJournal,457,471(1991). International Law68(1994). them underthecharter. jurisdiction ofanystate; means; territorial integrity orpolitical independence ofastate; Law, 68(1994).Thedeclaration states that: u (last visited Jan. 120 119 118 117 116 115 114 113 112 111 110 109 108 107 106 105 Krystyna Marek, IdentityandContinuityofStates inPublic Guide to thePeace Process: TheMadridFramework, www. Malcolm N.Shaw,Territory inInternational Law,13NYIL61, Malcolm N.Shaw,Territory inInternational Law,13 NYIL61, Malcolm N.Shaw,Territory inInternational Law,13 NYIL61, Charles DeVisscher wasalegal practitioner, whobecame a Malcolm N.Shaw,Territory inInternational Law,13NYIL Thecomplex relationship between recognition andstatehood Peter Malanczuk,Akehurst’s ModernIntroduction to G.A. Res.43/177,U.N.GAOR, 43rd sess., 82ndmtg. Francis A.Boyle, TheCreation oftheState ofPalestine, 1EJIL G.A. Res.3237,U.N.GAOR, 29thSess., 2296thmtg.On22 On September 9,1993,Yasser Arafat sentaletter to then Malcolm N.Shaw,International Law146-47(1997). Declaration ofPrinciples onInterim Self-Government See Malcolm N.Shaw,International Law146(1997). Arrangements. SeeDeclaration ofPrinciples onInterim mfa.gov.il. 72 (1982). 65 (1982). 64 (1982). universal praise. books. While slightly dated today, his works have received returned to academic life, andbeganwritingpublishing ended in1952whenhewasnotre-elected to theICJ. He member ofthePCIJin1930s.Thisportionhiscareer diminished. this regard too, thefunctionofterritory hasbeenmuch of international economic institutions have meantthatin national industry andorganizations, andthedevelopment second traditional functionofterritory, thegrowth ofmulti- the to regard With immunity from terrorist infiltration. Even recognized boundariesonamapmaynotoffer total possession ofterritory cannot alone guarantee security. that while important (aswillbediscussed below themere Modern military technology, missiles included,demonstrate questionable. is functions two these alone continues to fulfill However, Professor Shawargues thatwhetherterritory the possibility ofactingasaspringboard for opportunity.” main functions:“theneedfor ashelter for securityand two 61, 63-64(1982).Territory hastraditionally fulfilled is discussed above. International Law82-84(7thed.1997). International Law,159(Droit 1968). 301, 302(1990). conferences heldunderUNauspices. permanent observer intheAssembly andotherinternational Resolution 3237,whichconferred onthePLO thestatus ofa November 1974theUnited NationsGeneral Assembly passed Palestinian people. (http://www.mfa.gov.il). which Israel recognized the PLO astherepresentatives ofthe Rabin sentaletter to Arafat, alsodated September 9,2003,in right ofIsrael to exist inpeace andsecurity. Inresponse, Prime Minister YitzchakRabininwhichherecognized the Law, 69(1994). 129 128 127 126 125 124 123 122 121 148 147 146 145 144 143 142 141 140 139 138 137 136 135 134 133 132 131 130 Alan Dershowitz, TheCasefor Peace 39(2005). This willbediscussed below. Oslo II,Annex I,Article X. Oslo II,Annex I,Article X. Peter Malanczuk,SomeBasicAspectsoftheAgreements Erik Schechter, AHistory of‘“safe passage”,’ Jerusalem Post, Cairo Agreement, Annex I,Article IX. Cairo Agreement, Article XI. The Israel PLO Agreement ontheGazaStripandGreater Secretary Rice’s use ofthisterm willbediscussed below. The Oxford English Dictionary745(2nded.1989). The Oxford EnglishDictionary746(2nded.1989). Black’s Law Dictionary340(8thed.2004). The Oxford EnglishDictionary830(2nded.1989). Oxford EnglishDictionary830(2nded.1989). Black’s Law Dictionary338(8thed.2004). Black’s LawDictionary338(8thed.2004). Oxford EnglishDictionary822(2nded.1989). This securityconsideration willbediscussed below. Hilary LeilaKrieger,Gaza-West BankConvoys PutonHold, Hilary LeilaKrieger,US‘notpressing’ for Gaza,W. Bank Op-ed, Unsafe passage, Jerusalem Post, Dec.12,2005,at13. Agreed DocumentsonMovement andAccess from andto The Disengagement Plan-General Outline,Communicated by Address byIsraeli PrimeMinister ArielSharon to theHigh 13/12/2005, SG/SM/10262, pal/2033.TheSecretary General A Performance-Based Roadmapto aPermanent Two-State Interview withDanielTaub, Foreign Ministry LegalAffairs International Law,7EJIL 485,488(1996). Between Israel andthePLO from thePerspective of Dec. 16,2005,at18. Agreement]. of Foreign Affairs, Government ofIsrael [hereinafter Cairo Gaza StripandJerichoArea, May4,1999,Isr.-PLO, Ministry of local governance inthoseareas. SeeAgreement onthe Jericho area, andallows the PA to assume most functions administration andmilitary forces intheGazaStripand Jericho Area provides for thepartialredeployment ofIsraeli DOP]. Ministry ofForeign Affairs, Government ofIsrael [hereinafter Self-Government Arrangements, Sept.13,1993,Isr.-PLO, Jerusalem Post, Dec.16,2005,at1. Convoys, Jerusalem Post, Dec.9,2005,at10. visited Feb. 28,2007). Gaza, November 152005,available at: at: available 2, Article 2004, 18, April the PrimeMinister’s Office, Nations General Assembly, September 15,2005. Level Plenary Meetingofthe60thSession oftheUnited Obligations. Calls for theRedoublingofEfforts to MeetRoadMap in aMessage to theConference ontheQuestion ofPalestine available at: 2003, 30, Apr, Solution to theIsraeli-Palestinian Conflict, file). on (copy 2005) 20, (Dec. Jerusalem in official, www.mfa.gov.i www.mfa.gov.i l (last visited Feb. 28,2007). l (last visited Jan.10,2007). www.mfa.gov.i l (last

page59 page60 164 163 162 161 160 159 158 157 156 155 154 153 152 151 150 149 World BankTechnical Team, Doorto Door Movement, July 5, World BankTechnical Team, LinkingGaza and theWest Bank, World BankTechnical Team, Doorto DoorMovement, July 5, World BankTechnical Team, Doorto DoorMovement, July 5, World BankTechnical Team, Doorto DoorMovement, July 5, World BankTechnical Team, Doorto DoorMovement, July 5, Available at:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chunnel. (last Alan Dershowitz, TheCasefor Peace 39(2005). Condoleezza Rice, March 1,2005. Saul Hudson,Rice pushesfor Gaza-West Bank‘Connectivity,” Available at: Address by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon at the Fourth Herzliya Dennis B.Ross, Yasser Arafat; ThinkAgain, Foreign Policy, Deborah Sontag, AndYet SoFar: ASpecialReport;Quest for Alan Dershowitz, TheCasefor Peace 18-24(2005).In Available at:http://ue.eu.int/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/ accepted theoffer they would have hadastate. Thefact that It wascolloquially ‘allornothing.’HadthePalestinians the Israeli offer atCampDavidshouldnotbeenshrined. offer isnotthestarting pointfor future negotiations.Sotoo, the negotiationsofwhichoffer wasparthave failed. The have failed. They donotsubsequently maintain anoffer if generally enshrineoffers madeduringnegotiationsthat failed. Whatisimportant to note isthatcountries donot Arafat refused theoffer andtherefore thenegotiations than 95percent oftheWest Bankandtheadjoiningland. Palestinians statehood inalloftheGazaStrip,andmore 2000, thenIsraeli PrimeMinister EhudBarak, offered the Sept. 30,2005. 2005. 2005. 2005. 2005. visited: Apr. 2,2007) The Washington Times,July. 24,2005. New York, Sept.20,2005.(last visited: Apr. 2,2007) pressData/en/declarations/86284.pd Conference, Dec18.2003. New York, Sept.20,2005.(lasvisited Apr. 2,2007) pressData/en/declarations/86284.pd July 1,2002. homelands andtheirexternal affairs. entities, theApartheidregime tightly controlled allthe was basedonsheerracism. While ostensibly independent to ten separate homelandsorBantustans. Thispolicy African ApartheidState, whichconsigned itsblackpopulation 2001. Thecreation ofBantustans wasanaspectoftheSouth Middle East Peace: How andWhyitFailed, NYTimes,July 26, terrorism. offer thesameormore would betantamount to rewarding This isaview AlanDershowitz supports, ashesaysthatto date beoffered less thanthey were atCampDavidin2000. David negotiations.Thus,thePalestinians could atalater future negotiationswillnotbeginonthepremise oftheCamp they rejected itmeansthatthey donothave astate, andthat http://ue.eu.int/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/ f f . Quartet Statement, . Quartet Statement, 174 173 172 171 170 169 168 167 166 165 193 192 191 190 189 188 187 186 185 184 183 182 181 180 179 178 177 176 175 World BankTechnical Team, Doorto DoorMovement, July 5, World BankTechnical Team, Doorto DoorMovement, July 5, AlanDershowitz, TheCasefor Peace 43-44(2005) Alan Dershowitz, TheCasefor Peace 43-44(2005) Available at:http://www. rand.org/publications/randreview/ World BankTechnical Team, LinkingGazaandtheWest Bank, World BankTechnical Team, LinkingGazaandtheWest Bank, World BankTechnical Team, LinkingGazaandtheWest Bank, World BankTechnical Team, ShortTerm Improvements World BankTechnical Team, ShortTerm Improvements AlanDershowitz, TheCasefor Peace 39(2005). UlrichFastenrath, Servitudes, 10EPIL389,391(1987). Malcolm N.Shaw,International Law366(4th ed.1997). Malcolm N.Shaw,International Law333-34 (4thed.). Malcolm N.Shaw,International Law334(4th ed.). IanBrownlie, Principles ofPublicInternational Law107(4th Malcolm N.Shaw,International Law333(4thed.). IanBrownlie, Principles ofPublic International Law107(4th IanBrownlie, Principles ofPublic International Law107(4th World BankTechnical Team, Doorto DoorMovement, July 5, World BankTechnical Team, Doorto DoorMovement, July 5, Palestine Royal Commission Report(Peel Report)(1937),at World BankTechnical Team, Doorto DoorMovement, July 5, World BankTechnical Team, Doorto DoorMovement, July 5, World BankTechnical Team, Doorto DoorMovement, July 5, World BankTechnical Team, Doorto DoorMovement, July 5, World BankTechnical Team, Doorto DoorMovement, July 5, World BankTechnical Team, Doorto DoorMovement, July 5, World BankTechnical Team, Doorto DoorMovement, July 5, 2005. issues/summer2005/peace.html. (last visited: Apr. 2,2007) Sept. 30,2005. Sept. 30,2005. Sept. 30,2005. Closures, July 8,2005. Karni Border Crossing, Gaza-West BankLink,andInternal for Trade Facilitation andPassages: Improvements to the Closures, July 8,2005. Karni Border Crossing, Gaza-West BankLink,andInternal for Trade Facilitation andPassages: Improvements to the 2005. ed. 1990). ed. 1990). ed. 1990). 2005. 2005. 385. 2005. 2005. 2005. 2005. 2005. 2005. 2005. 2005. 214 213 212 211 210 209 208 207 206 205 204 203 202 201 200 199 198 197 196 195 194 DrYuval Steinitz etal,Jerusalem Center for PublicAffairs, Dr. MeirRosenne,Understanding UNSecurityCouncil SeeDr. MeirRosenne,Understanding UNSecurityCouncil DrYuval Steinitz etal,Jerusalem Center for PublicAffairs, DrYuval Steinitz etal,Jerusalem Center for PublicAffairs, Maj.-Gen.(res.) Yaakov Amidror, Israel’s Requirements for Mitchell G.Bard, ed.MythsandFacts: AGuideto theArab- Mitchell G.Bard, ed.MythsandFacts: AGuideto theArab- I.AShearer, Starke’s International Law95(11thed.1994). JosephGabrielStarke, Starke’s International Law94(11thed. I.AShearer, Starke’s International Law93-94(11thed.1994). would Victory Hamas Margot Dudkevitch, SecurityOfficials: would Victory Hamas Margot Dudkevitch, SecurityOfficials: HamasCharter, ascited intheJerusalem Post, Upfront, Jan. HamasCharter, ascited intheJerusalem Post, Upfront, Jan. Oslo II,Article XII(emphasisadded). I.AShearer, Starke’s International Law89-90(11thed.1994). Available at: SeeMalcolm N.Shaw,International Law366(4thed.1997). UlrichFastenrath, Servitudes,10EPIL389,391(1987). Dr. MeirRosenne,Understanding UNSecurity Council Resolution 242of November 22,1967,ontheMiddle East in on thismatter. that text istheEnglishtext. Thus,theEnglish text prevails originally submitted to theUN SecurityCouncil.Inthiscase, language differences, preference isgiven to thetext thatwas the occupied territories. Inthecase ofclashingtexts dueto thus tacitly requiring thatIsrael withdraw from only someof article, on theotherhandintentionally leaves out thedefinite been occupied inIsrael’s defensive war. TheEnglishversion to require thatIsrael withdraw from allterritory thathad territories.” Thus,theFrench version oftheresolution seems called for thewithdrawal ofIsraeli forces from “theoccupied and “the” article The French text madeuseofthedefinite in French andtheother,presented bytheBritish,inEnglish. draft resolutions were presented to theSecurityCouncil,one Defensible Borders for aLasting Peace 41,46(2005).Two Dr Yuval Steinitz etal,Jerusalem Center for PublicAffairs, Resolution 242ofNovember 22,1967,ontheMiddle East in Defensible Borders for aLasting Peace 41(2005). Dr Yuval Steinitz etal,Jerusalem Center for PublicAffairs, Resolution 242ofNovember 22,1967,ontheMiddle East in Defensible Borders for aLasting Peace 2(2005). Defensible Borders for aLasting Peace 2(2005). Defensible Borders for aLasting Peace 2(2005). Peace 17,19(2005). Center for PublicAffairs, Defensible Borders for aLasting Defensible Borders, inDr. Yuval Steinitz etal,Jerusalem (2001). Israeli Conflict (2001). Israeli Conflict 1994). Destroy PA, Jerusalem Post, Jan.11,2006,at2. Destroy PA, Jerusalem Post, Jan.11,2006,at2. 6, 2006,at16. 6, 2006,at16. http://www.mfa.gov.i l (last visited Feb. 28,2007). 220 219 218 217 216 215 232 231 230 229 228 227 226 225 224 223 222 221 Mitchell G.Bard, ed.MythsandFacts: aGuideto theArab- Lieutenant General (Ret)ThomasKelly, director ofoperations Maj.-Gen. (res.) Yaakov Amidror, Israel’s Requirements for Maj.-Gen. (res.) Yaakov Amidror, Israel’s Requirements for Maj.-Gen. (res.) Yaakov Amidror, Israel’s Requirements for Dr Yuval Steinitz etal,Jerusalem Center for PublicAffairs, Available at: Available at: Ben-David, Alon, “PIJattempted helo shootdown, say Dan Izenberg &Yaakov Katz,‘Karnicrossing isanAcidTest of Dan Izenberg &Yaakov Katz,‘KarniCrossing isanAcidTest of Dr. Yuval Steinitz etal,Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, Jerusalem Issue Brief,Jerusalem Center for PublicAffairs, Available at: Available at: Dr. Yuval Steinitz etal,Jerusalem Center for PublicAffairs, Maj.-Gen. (res.) Yaakov Amidror, Israel’s Requirements for Available at:http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/ sal oflc (2001). Israeli Conflict (2001). Israeli Conflict Mitchell G.Bard, ed.MythsandFacts: aGuideto theArab- from theJointChiefsofStaff duringtheGulfWar of1991. Peace 17,39(2005). Center for PublicAffairs, Defensible Borders for aLasting Defensible Borders, inDr. Yuval Steinitz etal,Jerusalem Peace 17,37(2005). Center for PublicAffairs, Defensible Borders for aLasting Defensible Borders, inDr. Yuval Steinitz etal,Jerusalem Peace 17,37(2005). Center for PublicAffairs, Defensible Borders for aLasting Defensible Borders, inDr. Yuval Steinitz etal,Jerusalem Defensible Borders for aLasting Peace 4(2005). Defensible Borders for aLasting Peace 41,46(2005). Dr Yuval Steinitz etal,Jerusalem Center for PublicAffairs, long-range Katyusharockets, LAW anti-tank missiles, January 2002,carrying over 50tons ofweapons, including freighter destined for theGazaStrip.Itwasdiscovered in Peace/paship.htm 2&docid=37572.E Israelis.” Jane’s Defense Weekly, Feb. 15,2006. Abu Manen’s Capabilities,’Jerusalem Post, Jan.5,2007,at3. Abu Manen’s Capabilities,’Jerusalem Post, Jan.5,2007,at3. Defensible Borders for aLasting Peace 14(2005). 16, February 3,2004. Dan Haloutz, 21st CenturyThreats Facing Israel, Vol. 3,No 04/20050411-2.htm 04/20040414-3.htm should bewipedoffthemap.” forum called ‘TheWorld WithoutZionism,’stated that“Israel 2005, Iranian President MahmudAhmadinejad,speakingata news/iran/2005/iran-051101-rfer/01.ht Defensible Borders for aLasting Peace 2(2005). Peace 17,28-29(2005). Center for PublicAffairs, Defensible Borders for aLasting Defensible Borders, inDr. Yuval Steinitz etal,Jerusalem http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org.jsource/ www.idf.il/dover/site/mainpage.asp?sl=EN&id=2 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/ http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases2004/ N l . TheKarineAwasafour-thousand ton (last visited Feb. 28,2007). l l (last visited Feb. 28,2007). (last visited Feb. 28,2007). m . OnOctober 26,

page61 page62 256 255 254 253 252 251 250 249 248 247 246 245 244 Available at:http:/bryce.cag.iai/Tech_lib/janes/jds_270306/ 243 242 241 240 239 238 237 236 235 234 233 The Oxford English Dictionary588(2nded.1989). The Oxford English Dictionary588(2nded.1989). The Oxford EnglishDictionary588(2nded.1989) This isdiscussed below. This isdiscussed below. Conference. The Quartet, Mar. London 1,2004,TheLondonConference. The 2005, 1, Mar. Annan, Kofi Condoleezza Rice, Mar. 1,2005,LondonSummit. President George Bush,Feb. 21,2005,Brussels. Dan Izenberg, Terrorists Targeted DimonaReactor, Maj.-Gen. (res.) Yaakov Amidror, Israel’s Requirements for JCPA, at31 Jane’s Land-BasedAirDefense. Man-Portable Surface-to-air Jane’s Land-BasedAirDefense. Man-Portable Surface-to-air Qassam rocket models.Available at: Khaled AbuToameh, Palestinian Groups Threaten Israel with Khaled AbuToameh, Palestinian Groups Threaten Israel with Available at: Ben-David, Alon, “PIJattempted helo shootdown, say Hilary LeilaKrieger,Fatah CellsHave Long-RangeMissiles, Katz, Yaacov. Qassams atAshkelon pose‘disaster’ threat, Blanche, Ed,“Israelis seeQassams becoming aproblem.” Jane’s Israel.” bracket missiles Blanche, Ed,“Militant-fired Jane’s Israel.” bracket missiles Blanche, Ed,“Militant-fired says Diskin,Jerusalem Post, Jan,4.2006,at3. Jerusalem Post. Feb. 17,2006. Jane’s Missiles andRockets, Apr. 1,2006. Missiles andRockets, Feb. 1,2006. Missiles andRockets, Feb. 1,2006. explosives. high of tons two than more and sniper-rifles, Sagger anti-tank missiles, long-range mortar bombs,mines, Jerusalem Post, Jan.3,2006,at4. Peace 17,33(2005). Center for PublicAffairs, Defensible Borders for aLasting Defensible Borders, inDr. Yuval Steinitz etal,Jerusalem 2007). jlad2007/janes/jlad2007/jlad0023.htm (last visited Feb. 28, at: http:/bryce.cag.iai/Tech_lib/janes/jds_270306/yearbook/ missile systems, Russian Federation. Nov. 18,2005.Available Feb. 28,2007). yearbook/jlad2007/janes/jlad2007/jlad0008.htm (last visited missile systems, Egypt.Jan.25,2005. May 2006. Long-Range Missiles, Jerusalem Post, Dec.27,at2. Long-Range Missiles, Jerusalem Post, Dec,27.2005,at2. Hamas won theJanuary2006elections. and wastherulingpartyinPalestinian Territories until Currently Fatah isled byMahmoudAbbas(akaAbuMazen), 1982 untiltheirreturn to theWest BankandGazain1993. politics. Theleaders ofFatah lived inexile inTunisia from of 1967,Fatah became thedominantforce inPalestinian Palestinian dispora, includingYasser Arafat. After thewar established inapproximately 1958bymembers ofthe Israelis.” Jane’s Defence Weekly, Feb. 15,2006. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/fata http://en.wikipedia.or h . Fatah was g . 267 266 265 264 263 262 261 260 259 258 257 4 ttssalfll ngo at h biain assumed 278 obligations the faith good in 14.States shallfulfill Sovereign equality ofstates; and Principles ofequalrightsand self-determination ofpeoples; Thedutyofstates to cooperate withoneanother; Thedutynotto intervene inmatters withinthedomestic States shallsettle theirinternational disputes bypeaceful States shallrefrain from thethreat oruseofforce against the 277 276 275 274 273 272 271 270 269 268 See JamesCrawford, TheCreation oftheState ofPalestine: See NiiLante Wallace-Bruce, Claimsto Statehood in Peter Malanczuk,Akehurst’s ModernIntroduction to See NiiLante Wallace-Bruce, Claimsto Statehood in See JamesCrawford, TheCriteria for Statehood in Nii Lante Wallace-Bruce, Claimsto Statehood inInternational Nii Lante Wallace-Bruce, Claimsto Statehood inInternational Nii Lante Wallace-Bruce, Claimsto Statehood inInternational Convention onRightsandDutiesofStates signedat Black’s LawDictionary1597(8thed.2004). The Oxford EnglishDictionary588(2nd ed.1989). Available at: Nii Lante Wallace-Bruce, Claimsto Statehood inInternational Nii Lante Wallace-Bruce, Claimsto Statehood inInternational Nii Lante Wallace-Bruce, Claimsto Statehood in International James Crawford, TheCriteria for Statehood inInternational James Crawford, TheCriteria for Statehood inInternational James Crawford, TheCriteria for Statehood inInternational Malcolm N.Shaw,International Law143(1997). See NiiLante Wallace-Bruce, Claimsto Statehood in Nii Lante Wallace-Bruce, Claimsto Statehood in International James Crawford, TheCriteria for Statehood inInternational International Law,54(1994). International Law,76-77(7thed.1997)(1970). Shaw, International Law,140(4thed.1997). of PublicInternational Law73(4thed.1990);andMalcolm N. International Law53(4thed.1994);IanBrownlie, Principles International Law,48BYIL93,114(1976-1977). International Law,13NYIL61,67(1982). Law 51-52(1994);Malcolm. N.Shaw,Territory in Law, 51(1994). Law, 57(1994). Montevideo on26December, 1933,165LNTS19. visited Feb. 28,2007). by themundertheCharter. jurisdiction ofanystate; means; territorial integrity orpolitical independence ofastate; Law, 68(1994).Thedeclaration states that: Law, 66-67(1994). Law, 66(1994). Law, 48BYIL93,120(1976-1977). Law, 48BYIL93,126(1976-1977). Law, 48BYIL93,123(1976-1977). International Law,57(1994). Law, 55-56(1994). Law, 48BYIL93,119(1976-1977). Too MuchToo Soon?,1EJIL 307,308-09(1990). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Pakista n (last 305 304 303 302 301 300 299 298 297 296 295 294 293 292 291 290 289 288 287 286 285 284 283 282 281 280 279 CIA World Factbook. 2006.Available at: CIA World Factbook. 2006.Available at: CIA World Factbook. 2006.Available at: CIA World Factbook. 2006.Available at: CIA World Factbook. 2006.Available at: CIA World Factbook. 2006.Available at: CIA World Factbook. 2006.http://www.cia.gov/cia/ 42 U.N.T.S. 303-320(1949) General Armistice Agreement between Israel andJordan. Maps in History Its Martin Gilbert,The Arab-Israeli Conflict: Abba Eban,Eban: AnAutobiography 95(1977). Available at: Available at: Available at: Available at: Available at: Available at: Available at: Available at: Available at: Available at: According to the Germannewspaper DieWelt, "Palestine" Alan Dershowitz, Thecase for peace 41(2005). Alan Dershowitz, Thecase for peace 41(2005). 2006. 17, January UNCTAD, Mahmoud Elkhafif, Available at: CIA World Factbook. 2006.Available at: en.pd 2007). cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.htm 2007). cia/publications/factbook/geos/ar.htm 2007). cia/publications/factbook/geos/mu.htm 2007). cia/publications/factbook/geos/tt.htm 2007). cia/publications/factbook/geos/bx.htm 2007). cia/publications/factbook/geos/aj.htm visited Feb. 28,2007). balticuniv.uu.se/atlas/russia/KaliningradMap.ht gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/rs.htm publications/factbook/geos/ao.html. 38 (3rd ed.1979). (last visited Feb. 28,2007). (last visited Feb. 28,2007). (last visited Feb. 28,2007). (last visited Feb. 28,2007). Liberation_Wa Liberation_Wa Liberation_Wa Liberation_Wa Liberation_Wa visited Feb. 28,2007). f (last visited Feb. 28,2007). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danzig_Corrido http://en.wilkipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh_ http://en.wilkipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh_ http://en.wilkipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh_ http://en.wilkipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh_ http://en.wilkipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Pakista http://www.unctad.org/en/docs//gdsapp20031_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danzig_Corrido http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danzig_Corrido http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danzig_Corrido r r r r r (last visited Feb. 28,2007). (last visited Feb. 28,2007). (last visited Feb. 28,2007). (last visited Feb. 28,2007). (last visited Feb. 28,2007). l l l (last visited Feb. 28, l l (last visited Feb. 28, (last visited Feb. 28, http://www.cia.gov/ http://www.cia.gov/ http://www.cia.gov/ http://www.cia. http://www.cia.gov/ http://www.cia.gov/ (last visited Feb. 28, (last visited Feb. 28, l http://www.cia.gov/ (last visited Feb. 28, l ; http://www. m (last n (last r r r r

308 307 306 Alan Dershowitz, TheCasefor Peace 39(2005). This isdiscussed inPart IIofthismonograph. Alan Dershowitz, TheCasefor Peace 36(2005). Jan. 10,2007). jewishworldreview.com/0403/muravchik.php World Review, Apr. 30,2003,available at: need anotherDoomedMideast Peace Process, Jewish Joshua Muravchik, TheRoadMap to Nowhere: Dowe really is theworld's largest percapita recipient offoreign aid. http://www. 3 (last visited

page63 The Jerusalem Center for Public Aﬀairs

Books and Monographs

Defensible Borders for a Lasting Peace Iran, Hizballah, Hamas, and the Global Dr. Yuval Steinitz, Maj.-Gen. (res.) Yaakov Amidror, Jihad: A New Conflict Paradigm for the West Dr. Meir Rosenne, and Dr. Dore Gold Lt.-Gen. (res.) Moshe Yaalon, Maj.-Gen. (res.) Israel’s rights and requirements for defensible borders, Yaakov Amidror, Dr. Martin Kramer, Brig.-Gen. (res.) as proposed by President George W. Bush, have now been Dr. Shimon Shapira, Dan Diker, and Lt.-Col. (res.) placed squarely on the global diplomatic agenda. This multi- Jonathan D. Halevi disciplinary study focuses on Israel's minimal territorial The second Lebanon war, having erupted after Israel’s unilateral requirements to enable it to defend itself in the post-Iraq War withdrawal from territories vacated in south Lebanon and Gaza, Middle East. has called into question whether the Arab-Israeli conflict any longer involves a territorial dispute. European-Israeli Relations: Between Confusion and Change Referral of Iranian President Manfred Gerstenfeld, with Frits Bolkestein, Oded Ahmadinejad on the Charge of Eran, Efraim Halevy, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Josef Joffe, Incitement to Commit Genocide Ruth Lapidoth, Zvi Mazel, Anton Pelinka, and Others Fifteen interviewees from Europe and Israel discuss European- Justus Reid Weiner, with Meir Rosenne, Elie Wiesel, Israeli relations. Dore Gold, Irit Kohn, Eytan Bentsur, and Dan Naveh Historically addressing genocide has been primarily a forensic endeavor that begins functioning when the tragedy is over. Now is The Fight for Jerusalem: Radical Islam, the time to avert bloodshed: Ahmadinejad’s incitement deserves the West, and the Future of the Holy City an indictment. Dore Gold Jerusalem has been under assault. The attack on the veracity of Human Rights of Christians in its biblical past was only a prelude for compromising that began Palestinian Society at Camp David. In Western diplomatic circles, including in the U.S., it is now being argued that by pushing hard for a Middle Justus Reid Weiner East settlement, with the redivision of Jerusalem at its core, the There has been nearly uninterrupted persecution of Christians flames of radical Islamic rage will be lowered. Yet a redivision in areas "governed" by the Palestinian Authority since the of Jerusalem would not only endanger its holy sites, but also Oslo peace process began. Living amidst a xenophobic Muslim unleash new jihadist momentum. (Regnery, 2007) population plagued by endemic violence bordering on anarchy, the Christians have shrunk to less than 1.7% of the population in the Palestinian areas. "Their plight is, in part, attributable to Jerusalem in International Diplomacy the adoption of Muslim religious law (Sharia) in the Constitution Dore Gold of the Palestinian Authority. Moreover, the Christians have been An examination of Israel's position in Jerusalem through the abandoned by their religious leaders who, instead of protecting study of the historical record and diplomatic documents. them, have chosen to curry favor with the Palestinian leadership," said human rights lawyer Justus Weiner, author of this study. www.jcpa.org